Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Question] Libavoid: Cancel a started Routing Operation #1096

Open
maxmrzk opened this issue Dec 11, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

[Question] Libavoid: Cancel a started Routing Operation #1096

maxmrzk opened this issue Dec 11, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
new feature A new feature. question Request for support in using ELK.

Comments

@maxmrzk
Copy link

maxmrzk commented Dec 11, 2024

Description
When layouting using a GraphLayoutEngine like the LibavoidLayoutProvider it would be nice to be able to cancel a started operation. This class creates a LibavoidServer, which writes and reads the graph via I/O. For large diagrams, a server might wait for a long time (20+ seconds) for a response of the routed graph. Having a way to cancel this operation, for example using the progress monitor, might be very useful. If there isn't such an option yet, I think it would be an approvement to implement one.

I'm keen to hear your thoughts on this topic, especially whether such a feature aligns with your design priorities or if you see alternative approaches to addressing this situation.

Desired behavior
Right now im using a workaround, that destroys the Server Process, if my ElkProgressMonitor is canceling. I have the server accessible via the LayoutProvider it was started in, so the process can be terminated without any memory leaks.

@maxmrzk maxmrzk added the question Request for support in using ELK. label Dec 11, 2024
@soerendomroes soerendomroes added the new feature A new feature. label Dec 11, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
new feature A new feature. question Request for support in using ELK.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants