The connection bug, was: Re: [Gzz] Summing up...

[Benja Fallenstein]

Tuomas Lukka wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 02:34:50PM +0200, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
>  
>
> > Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 12:56:27PM +0200, Benja Fallenstein wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > The problem is that the connections assume that (1,1) transforms to the 
> > > > lower right corner of the rectangle, but with (w=2, h=2)-- or 
> > > > (w=1,h=1)--, it's still the ul corner, just one or two pixels away.
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > Wait, now I don't understand. Could you explain the problem in more detail?
> > >
> > >      
> > Hm. I don't know how.
> >
> > Ok, another example. Let's say we have a cell with the bounds (x=100, 
> > y=100, w=50, h=20). This used to be our coordinate system, so if there 
> > was a connection downward, it would be anchored at (x+w/2, y+h) = (125, 
> > 110). Nowadays our coordinate system is (x=100, y=100, w=2, h=2), so the 
> > anchor point will be at (x+w/2, y+h) = (101, 102)-- for practical 
> > purposes, the upper left corner of the cell.
> >    
>
> Ahh, because of no scaling in AWT. Ok.

Argh. NO. Why do you think so? NOTHING in the example above is related 
to scaling. Setting w=2 and h=2 was done because of scaling, but the 
effects are no different whether scaling is actually turned on or not. 
The anchor point is (101, 102), i.e. ul corner, no matter whether 
scaling is on or not. (Proof is that the gl connections are also between 
the ul corners.)

Sorry for miscommunicating, but I don't know how to explain this better :-(

- Benja