Re: Sources of the "ttable" view

Le Wed, May 21, 2003 at 12:35:26AM +0200, Mikael Hallendal:
> > 
> > Create a (visual) "default group" ?
> 
> Or put them all under a "Ungrouped" node.
> > 
> > > I'm leaning towards that it would clutter up things in the common case,
> > > by introducing the additional level in the tree, but that's just my
> > > first thought.
> > 
> > Well, depends, I gave a try on some of my projects here, where the
> > staff is about 40 people, it can be useful to collapse the resources
> > that are not involved in *my* team when I want to have a global look at
> > the time-table view...
> 
> I personally think that having the groups in the time-table view is a
> good idea for the same reason Benjamin mentions. I really think that it
> would be a good idea to support having a resource in several groups
> though.
> 
> For example a person can be part of two seperate teams in the same
> project.

Well, yes, but I'm not sure to be able do to it... A way can be:
- to put *all* resources in the "Ungrouped" node
- each group is a node, with resources, with assignments.

This can lead to a "time-table" that is *very* hard to read, and that
can be pretty large. I'll get a look at it.

And this is not really easy to do with signal handling. I didn't check,
but some points are difficult, at least in I think they are, and I'll
check:
- is there a signal when a resource is added/removed from a group?
- when an assignment is added, it have to be inserted several times in
  the time-table, I've to check for it, I guess it works pretty well.
- I have to get a look at my other view, which use the same tree, to see
  if there are major impacts
- I'll try to check it's not too slow, or to large in memory.

Regards,

	Benjamin.