Re: UML module hackery

[Lars Clausen <lrclause cs uiuc edu>]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2002, Lars Clausen wrote:
>
> > Sounds great!  It's good to have more hands working on it.Make sure that
> > you work off of the CVS tree, as many things have changes.
>
> Check.
>
> > Tie points (connection points), as the other poster mentioned, can be
> > good and bad.  Their big limitation is in the limited amount of them,
> > their big strengths are that they keep a neater diagram and are easier
> > to handle internally.
>
> I also like having lines which go straight rather than 'across-then-up'.
> Auto-breaking (where you click-and-drag to get a corner) is the way I'd
> like to go with it.

How would you distinguish autobreaking a line from simply moving it?  This
doesn't sound like it's close to what polyline uses for segments.  Would
they still be like zig-zag line when not entirely straight?

> > > * Make labels (of all sorts) more mobile, and clean up the default
> > > placement of multiplicity tags.
> >
> > If you're using 0.90, you'll find that the CVS version has better
> > multiplicity tag placement.  A number of objects already have mobile
>
> I did notice something about that, and intelligent placement is good, but
> it can never handle all possible cases.  I'd like intelligent defaults
> plus shiftability.

I agree.

> > labels, and that should really be the case for all labels.  It's not
> > hard, but a lot of busywork.  Hey, you said you had interns... :)
>
> I have interns, and 10 weeks to use 'em.  Busywork is what they do.

Good.  This is perfect for them, then.  Plenty of examples to learn from.

> > > * Storing actual code along with class methods.  It's always felt to
> > > me that UML would make a really nice "graphical programming" tool, if
> > > we could store program code along with the structural elements.  It
> > > also means that we can skip out of letting out UML model fall to
> > > pieces as soon as we start to code, because we'll still be working
> > > with it.
> >
> > We were discussing earlier a way to let users arbitrarily add fields to
> > objects.  Now the UML class object in particular is nasty, evil and
> > hairy, and (I think) the only object that doesn't use the nice
> > properties system for everything.  It also needs linebreaks for long
> > signatures and a number of other fixes that we've put off becuase it's
> > so evil.  If you have an intern whose sanity isn't a concern of yours,
> > having it redone would be great! :)
>
> Their sanity is not my concern.  I give them work for 10 weeks, then hand
> them back to the University.  Besides, I think the Uni has lobotomised
> them sufficiently that mental disease is no longer possible.  <grin>

*smirk*  Well, recoding UML involves not only the object itself, but also
some (much needed) coding of the properties dialog widgets.  Once those
widgets are ready, we can make very complicated objects without having to
resort to non-properties code.

-Lars

-- 
Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause)| Hårdgrim of Numenor
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I   |----------------------------
will defend to the death your right to say it."   | Where are we going, and
    --Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire  | what's with the handbasket?