Re: UML-Conformity

[RittervomNie web de]

Am Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2004 12:38 schrieb larsrc raeder dk:
> > Am Donnerstag, 17. Juni 2004 03:02 schrieb Andrew Ross:
> > > On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 04:01, RittervomNie web de wrote:
> > > > To enhance the standard UML components a class should have a checkbox
> > > > "Interface" to produce a dashed outline. It is not easy to create a
> > > > class-like shape containing methods and attributes, stereotypes and
> > >
> > > that.
> > >
> > > What version of UML are you basing this on? In the current version of
> > > UML (1.5)  interfaces are indicated using the stereotype <<interface>>.
> >
> > M. Fowler, K. Scott, Addison Wesley, "UML Konzentriert" (I only know the
> > german title) and Bernd Oestereich, Oldenbourg "Objektorientierte
> > Softwareentwicklung" refer to 1.whatever UML and prefer a dashed outline
> > of
> > interfaces. If you haver other stereotypes it's a bit irritating to find
> > "interface" among them. It's only an enhancement, optional, some tools do
> > it,
> > I did it the past few years, looks a bit cleaner for people ignoring
> > stereotypes.
>
> I'm afraid the official standard (v 1.5) is against you, see
> http://www.omg.org/docs/formal/03-03-10.pdf, chapter 3.29.  That said, I
> don't think we've been striving to keep compliance with the specs
> generally.

Ok, I'll use stereotypes only *g*

> > > It's a bit early to be implementing UML 2.0, isn't it? After all, the
> > > spec isn't even complete!
> >
> > UML 2.0 has a lot of new features which will never be used (IMHO). Who
> > draws
> > exceptions breaking threaded sequences and so on? I've needed Class-,
> > Sequence and Activity Diagrams, Use Case only for sketching. Diagrams
> > must be
> > easy to understand, not fancy 3d rendered piles of crap. Who can insert a
> > class diagram containing 25 classes or interfaces with attributes and
> > methods
> > into a normal PDF? (printable on A4, shippable as book, not as map *g*)
>
> I agree that there's no reason to implement UML 2.0 just because it's
> there.  If there's stuff in it that people actually use, then by all
> means.  But let's not bloat Dia with things that nobody uses.
>
> > > I wouldn't switch it off, since that would no doubt result in a bug
> > > filed to have it added as a feature, even though it's already there
> > > (although it could do with some improvement). There is already a bug or
> > > two filed about text placement (roles, association names, and
> > > multiplicities) for UML associations and messages:
>
> The thing to do (and I'm mentioning this in bug 65430) is to have a
> default placement but also a handle so the user can adjust it.  Such a
> handle is used in several other objects.  The switch between automatically
> placed and user-placed should be controlled in the same way as
> auto-routing for zig-zag lines.  Good little project for somebody with a
> bit of time on their hands.

On the other hand these properties are usless. I must use the text element to 
display multiplicities, roles and message names.

> > > http://bugs.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65430
> > > http://bugs.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118313
> > >
> > > > If these little things would be done by releasing 1.0 or 0.94 or
> > > > whatever, including a good documentation, 80 software developers would
> > > > use this tool at work. I love it, it's so independent and absolutely
> > >
> > > slim
> > >
> > > > designed, 3 already infected...(discoverd it by updating my SuSE Linux
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > > 9.1)
>
> Can't guarantee anything, but quite willing to take in patches.  0.94 will
> probably not contain much more than is in current CVS HEAD.  1.0 has a set
> of goals mentioned on the Dia TWiki.
>
> > > I'd be willing to try and convince our uni to ditch Visio (which none of
> > > the staff know how to use anyway).
> >
> > I hate Rational (no interaction in already drawn sequence diagrams, only
> > delete and redraw), dislike Visio (too much) and had to use Together. The
> > best thing I ever saw was some nice Java-Tool, Composum. There you don't
> > work
> > diagram-based but document based. You can draw diagrams and insert them
> > into
> > the document editor. Best feature was to include different diagram
> > figures into a sub-diagram and extract these sub-diagrams from the main
> > diagram (only
> > a thin outline, rubberband, marks included objects, looks like a
> > package). Makes it easy to divide a digram into logical sub parts.
>
> An oft-wished for feature:  Heirarchical diagrams.  Suggestions welcome.

See new Thread...

"An oft-wished for feature:  Heirarchical diagrams.  Suggestions welcome."

C and C++ is not my favorite language, too much to worry about, otherwise I 
would do it :-). Maybe I'll learn it while improving dia. I'll have a look at 
the sources.

> -Lars
> _______________________________________________
> Dia-list mailing list
> Dia-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list
> FAQ at http://www.gnome.org/projects/dia/faq.html
> Main page at http://www.gnome.org/projects/dia