Re: UML-Conformity

[RittervomNie web de]

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.

>
> 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*)
>
> > 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:
>

Did'nt read this, sry.

> 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).

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.

>
> Cheers
>
> Andrew
>