Print

Print


OK. Thanks.

I'm on to other things (my main tasks), so I'll leave this in your good
hands.

Russ

On 4/18/16, 1:33 PM, "MASON Multiagent Simulation Toolkit on behalf of
Sean Luke" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I think there's an error in BarChartChartingPropertyInspector: it doesn't
>provide all the types so it won't appear that you can use the various
>ChartUtilities interfaces. To fix it, change its method to:
>
>    public static Class[] types()
>        {
>        return new Class[]
>            {
>            new Object[0].getClass(), java.util.Collection.class,
>            ChartUtilities.ProvidesDoublesAndLabels.class,
>            ChartUtilities.ProvidesObjects.class,
>            ChartUtilities.ProvidesCollection.class,
>            };
>        }
>
>I'll do a commit.
>
>Sean
>
>On Apr 18, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Russell Thomas
><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your effort on this.
>> 
>> I didn't know about #1.  I was searching intently for something like
>>this,
>> either in the MASON manual or Javadoc, and eventually in code, but I
>>came
>> up empty.  Needless to say, if this were clearly documented with an
>> example in MASON manual, then it would be straight forward to use.
>> 
>> I agree that #1 is probably better.  I'll try it out.
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
>> On 4/18/16, 1:16 PM, "MASON Multiagent Simulation Toolkit on behalf of
>> Sean Luke" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Okay, try this.
>>> 
>>> 1. MASON's PieChartChartingPropertyInspector and
>>> BarChartChartingPropertyInspector can *already* inspect objects with
>>> explicit double values and labels.  If your object implements the
>>> ChartUtilities.ProvidesDoublesAndLabels interface, you're done.  Try it
>>> out.
>>> 
>>> 2. If you really want to inspect arrays or collections with some kind
>>>of
>>> value/label pair in them, this isn't hard to add.  I whipped something
>>>up
>>> in PieChartChartingPropertyInspector like this (not committed yet).
>>>The
>>> idea is that if you are inspecting a Datum[] or are inspecting a
>>> Collection of Datum objects, it'll handle that specially.  Not tested
>>> yet, let me know.
>>> 
>>> I still kinda think #1 would be better.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sean