Georg Holzmann wrote:
Hallo!
<nbx ID="nbx1"/> <obj ID="obj1">print <connect> <from ID="nbx1"/> </connect> </obj>
But in this bottom-up approach the number box of this example must be created before the print ! (as we spoke about yeterday) So you can't simple put the objects on the empty canvas and then connect them (of course you can do that too, but i think this is more complicated ?)
i meant, that you first should parse the whole XML-domtree and afterwards create the objects and connect them (when you already know what is there)
what about name ? :
<connect inlet="3"> <from name="obj1" outlet="1"> <from name="obj2" outlet="0"> </connect>
well, i really don't care...
like this:
<nbx ID="nbx1"/> <obj ID="obj1">print <connect ID="blabla" inlet="0"> <from ID="nbx1" outlet="0"/> </connect> </obj>
but which advantages has this approach? You could also go to the object and delete the connection (and in the bottom-up style the object would be the one under the connection). And if you give labels to the connections you also have to remeber these if you are writing a patch in an editor (so that you don't use one label multiple times).
hmm yes; probably make the connect-ID optional (so you _could_ name it and delete it as such or choose to delete it based on the object)
the advantages i really don't know, it was just an idea, as i found the dyn-approach quite good (as far as i remember it). but probably XML-files wouldn't be the way you would go when doing dynamic patching - otoh why not ? you would then need to have atomic transactions, which isn't that bad either.
mfg.asd.r IOhannes