I think I agree with Tom, change for the sake of change is bad.
I also agree with Bob that change for the sake of keeping up with standards
is good.
Keeping up with standards, however, should not preclude maintaining
backwards compatibility as a courtesy to people, if any, who are dependent
upon it. Keeping the option of storing a traditional .zargo file with its
pgml's etc. would be such a courtesy.
I don't have an opinion on how many subsequent releases should keep such an
ability.
As I understand it, there are currently two ways to store a project. One is
as an .xmi file with everything in it. The other is a .zargo file which is
now nothing more than a zipped .xmi file.
It would seem to me that a .zargo file should be what it always was and if
the user wants the .xmi file to be zipped he is free to do so externally.
If you want a third option to store a zipped xmi file (probably called
.zxmi) as a convience that is fine.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Tarling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 6:14 AM
Subject: Re: FW: [argouml-dev] Re: Save entire project in XMI
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
