From graphics-request at octave dot org Sat Feb 25 17:38:34 2006
Subject: Re: Handle Graphics Properties v0.1
From: Ole Jacob Hagen <waterthrill at yahoo dot no>
To: graphics at octave dot org
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:37:00 +0100

Hi,

Handle Graphics is a registered trademark owned by Mathworks Inc. Our 
implementation cannot be called the same.

Props package in Oplot has most of these objects and properties built in.
It's only to create new object, and add new properties to them....And 
then you're ready.

I like the table where all objects and their properties can be found.
I believe that this hg objects are compatible with R14? You forgot the 
Root object.

Its correct that there are no objects called legend, movie, or colorbar.

The colorbar consists of one Axes object + Image.
Legend could also be an Axes object + Line + Text object with no axes 
tickvalues. 
This is the easiest way of doing it.

I would prefer a separate patch and a surface object. Patch is used for 
polygons, while surface object is used for rendering a rectangular 
grids. It might happen that Patch can be used to generate 3D surface 
plots....But isn't they rendered as triangles, when we try to do that?


Ole


NB: Shai hasn't created any props package.


Bill Denney wrote:
> So, I've codified the handle graphics properties that I think we need.
>
> http://denney.homeip.net/octave/properties.html
>
> This is definitely a work in progress.  I've borrowed liberally from 
> Shai's props package (as suggested, though I have made changes where I 
> thought that they were needed).  I've not really looked anywhere else 
> yet, but this is what I think should be supported by most (if not all) 
> graphics back ends.
>
> I wrote this on the train while commuting during the past couple of 
> days, and I plan to put it on the wiki soon (someone else can if they 
> have time-- I won't have time for several days I don't think), but 
> please start reading it, thinking about it, and discussing it.
>
> As said, this is a work in progress, and I'd like to hear other 
> opinions on what should be there, and how it should work.  There are 
> some things that I agree and some that I disagree with Shai on (some 
> are already changed, and some definitely need discussion).
>
> The first thing that I'd like to discuss is:
>
> Do we need separate patch and surface types, or can we just generalize 
> the patch as a surface in the z=0 plane and remove the patch type 
> (note that this doesn't mean removing the patch command)?
>
> Bill
>