Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-discussion] Missing map instance warnings from GraphWidget

Tania Tudorache tudorache at stanford.edu
Thu Dec 20 12:57:26 PST 2007


Jonathan,

If you use the latest beta (build 125 or greater), you should not see 
the Missing client information warnings anymore.

In the previous beta, we have added support for included forms in 
client-server mode, and especially for included graph widgets. As a side 
effect of this enhancement, you should not see the warnings in the 
client console anymore.

The way the forms work in client-server is as following: When the server 
starts, the forms are loaded from the pprj files. When a client connects 
to a server, the pprj file information is copied on the client, and from 
that moment on, whatever changes happen on the form on the client (e.g. 
move nodes in graph widget), won't be reflected on the server.

The issue of syncing the forms from different clients is complicated. 
And there is no clear solution. You can imagine that one client won't 
appreciate if another client suddenly changed the layout of the class he 
is just working on. The same with browser texts, instance layout, colors 
of graph widget nodes, etc. We thought of a solution that would solve 
this issue and which involves having different form customization for 
each client that are stored in a local pprj file.

So, there would be a new type of pprj file (transparent to the user), 
that would serve a remote ontology. When the client opens the pprj file, 
he will have his own form configuration but the contents of the ontology 
would come from the remote server.

We were thinking also for a solution for the graph widget, for which we 
might have a special handling for the position of nodes. So, if the 
position of a node is changed on a client, this should be reflected on 
the other clients as well. This may mean that the graph you are just 
viewing will have some nodes moving around (but probably this won't be 
very often the case). This is better than the current implementation, in 
which the new nodes created by other clients are put one on top of 
another in the upper left corner of the widget.

If you have other suggestions for possible solutions, we are happy to 
hear about them.

Tania


Samson Tu wrote:
> Jonathan Carter wrote:
>   
>> Hi Samson,
>>
>> OK, so to make sure I understand, if I create a graph in a client, when I
>> come to open it again, the server cannot serve me the locations/sizes etc.
>> and so everything reverts to default (at least it doesn't fail or crash!)?
>>     
>
> Yes. The automatic layout feature is probably your best option with new 
> graphs in client/server mode.
>
>   
>> What I've got is a project that was created in stand-alone mode, including
>> some graphs and now I'm using this project in client-server mode and even
>> all the graph properties that I can see in the server project files are not
>> 'sent down' to the clients. So, effectively, I've started with what you
>> suggested as the solution but am still having problems. If I open the
>> server's project locally on the server in stand-alone mode, everything is
>> fine with my graphs. I saved this standalone project to a new version on the
>> server and used this for client-server mode, but I am still getting the
>> warnings from my clients.
>>     
>
> Install the most recent version of Protege 3.4 beta. I never used 
> Protege in client/server mode until this past week because of problems 
> with form customizations and graph widget, but Protege developers have 
> fixed some of these bugs recently. You should get the standalone layout 
> with the current beta at least.
>
>
>   
>> Do you know if there are any plans to resolve this at some point? Or are
>> there any pointers/thoughts as to what the solution is? I'd be happy to help
>> resolve the issue.
>>     
>
> There is hope that the issue may get resolved early next year.
>
> Samson
>   




More information about the protege-discussion mailing list