[Cmb-users] Proposed change to Attribute and Item Definitions

[Robert Michael O'Bara]

Hi All,

With CMB 4.1 / SMTK 1.1 nearing completion, we have started working on CMB 5.0/SMTK 2.0.  There is one possible change I would like to propose and wanted to get your feedback on concerning how attribute definitions and item definitions are currently defined.

The role of these classes are to represent simulation information.  The Attribute Definitions representing the conceptual aspect of the information while the Item Definitions representing its structure.  Note that how the information is to be represented in a GUI is (for the most part) not part of these classes but is represented in the Views.  The one exception are the Labels.  They represent the alternative way of displaying the "type" information of the attribute definition and the "name" information of the item definition.  

Since in 5.0, the GUI generation will support specifying where items should be placed within a View's  widgets that are  rendering the information, I was wondering if moving the label information into View structure would make more sense.  It would allow workflows to customize how the type and name info is displayed (as well as allowing for localization).

Along those lines I was wondering if we should support allowing the Workflow the ability to "override" the default values of Items since (based on the assumption that a default values may be workflow specific).

Let me know what you think.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Bob

Robert M. O'Bara, MEng.
Technical Leader

Kitware Inc.
28 Corporate Drive
Suite 101
Clifton Park, NY 12065

Phone: (518) 881- 4931