On 8/22/06, Tom Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are Bob and I the only ones with an opinion on this? The implementation has gone ahead with effectively no discussion.
Well I did announce my intention a couple of times. It's unfortunate I missed your email.
I've seen no stated benefit for this change to a *major* external interface. Are we really sure we understand the knock on effects of entirely dropping one file format and making major changes to the others? Change for the sake of change is bad, particularly in such a critical area that we've been working so hard to stabilize.
The change was not just for its own sake. The reason for change was to use an industry standard extension for persistence. We need to keep as close to standards as we can.
3. I thought the UML 2.x structure was to have the diagrams in their own XMI file(s) separate from the model. If I'm remembering this correctly, merging everything into a single file represents a detour from the long term direction that we'll have to undo later.
I thought in UML2 diagrams were contained in the same XMI as the model.
I suspect the current implementation isn't multi-byte character set safe.
I think the general use of InputStream should be replaced with Reader. This would allow me to use CharArrayReader or StringReader as opposed to ByteArrayInputStream. Bob. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
