Re: UML-Conformity

[Andrew Ross <aross westnet com au>]

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>>.

It's a bit early to be implementing UML 2.0, isn't it? After all, the
spec isn't even complete!

> It's also not possible to create a new focus on an existing lifeline or 
> connect a box to it (grouping, ok, but that's not it, not editable anymore). 
> It's also possible to work around with another life line connected to the 
> same class, putting it into background and so on...

I agree with this. It is quite annoying (not to mention conceptually
confusing).

> At least switch of any text related to UML-Associations until it works 
> properly. Alignment is absolutely dirty and, as said before, no font 
> properties can be changed.

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:

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)

I'd be willing to try and convince our uni to ditch Visio (which none of
the staff know how to use anyway).

Cheers

Andrew