Brad Chapman wrote: > > > I think what we can do is place a "P" in > > the dot, indicating that communication is from/to Parent. In > > addition, the dot can turn green when its mapped counterpart on > > the parent is also green. > > Sounds good! I'm thinking now about a small black dot inside of the green dot, which can be interpreted as a line coming up out of the main dot and into the parent. > void showConnection(in Locus inLocus, in Connector inConnector, > in Locus outLocus, in Connector outConnector); > > (there is an equivalent "hideConnection"). I guess for this case what > we should do is just pass a single Locus and Connector to "be > connected" (and pass the other set as NULL). Since I can't really > think of another case where this will happen, the UI can interpret > this as being due to a "Parent" connector being mapped. Sound okay? Yeah, we can give that a try. > > Shouldn't links have names by default? And then the user can change > > it if they want. > > Okay, but I'm not sure what the "default" name should be so that I'll > be easily recognizable. What I've been doing internally is munging > together the "name" of the locus inside of a composite (ie. Constant3) > with the name of the link (so ending up with something like > Constant3--VALUE as the name in the parent). But this "Constant3" info > isn't available to the user in the ui (all they see is constant) so I > don't think this name'll be very meaningful. How do you want to handle > the default? Well, Piper should know what /type/ of information each connector relays, or what the connection represents, so how about the default name simply being the connector type? Jeff -- J.W. Bizzaro jeff at bioinformatics.org Director, Bioinformatics.org: The Open Lab http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff "Let the machine do the dirty work." -- Kernighan and Ritchie --