Re: the UML ClassDialog v/s the generic Dia properties dialog

["Sameer Sahasrabuddhe" <sameerds gmail com>]

On 11/20/08, Lars Ræder Clausen <lars raeder dk> wrote:

> > dialog, only three things are relevant to Dia, the diagram app:
> >
> > Text Color
> > Foreground Color
> > Background Color
>
> I would posit everything under the "Style" tab, plus the wrapping
> widths.

Ok. Whatever "makes sense" in terms of Dia. In a loose sense that
means anything that has to do with appearance (layout, colours,
groupings, connections, etc) in a generic way.

> Why shouldn't the UML object follow the style of the Flowchart Box and
> allow editing of its contents in-diagram? Having two different dialogs
> would introduce a new (third) way to edit contents. Things that cannot
> be written directly can be modifiable via the context menu -- which can
> be built dynamically based on what part of the object is being pressed.

This goes into the domain of usability ... the best way to edit UML
content might need some more thinking, and I have not given any
thought to that. My purpose here is to get that specialised properties
dialog out of the way, in order to clear the way for bug fixes related
to the properties dialog. But for now, I think I might be able to get
my fixes in without affecting the current behaviour. If that doesn't
work, the current UML properties dialog just might need a separate
method of invocation instead of the current double click.

Sameer.
-- 
http://www.it.iitb.ac.in/~sameerds/