On 10/15/07, Luis Sergio Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I had success in making the UML profile for C++ available from the C++ > module > and integrating it with the new Profile management code in ArgoUML. > > > Now, I think that this is good, but, I noticed that we could make easily > some improvements: > * org.argouml.uml.profile package isn't good to be exported, since it > doesn't qualify as a sub-system, because > it contains both the interfaces and the implementation and, probably > it is better to move the relevant interfaces > and classes to org.argouml.uml, being considered part of the existing > "UML sub-system API" (?)
a subsystem can't have "subpackages"? * some parts of it depend on the usage of singletons, like > ProfileManagerImpl.getInstance(), and although convenient > at first glance these are a dependency trap, mainly if part of an API how could this be solved? making it an "static class"? as some other classes at the uml package (like: DocumentationManager, StereotypeUtility...) ?? * I don't like the duplication of model loading code, therefore, if > nothing else works, we might change the visibility of > StreamModelLoader.loadModel(InputStream is), making it possible for > modules to reuse it by handing-over > the InputStream i think we should re -design the profile loading api... i makes the assumption that every one would try to load the model from some "path"... on the other side we should investigate why doesn't it work.... do you have a more detailed description of the problem? maas > > > -- - http://www.marcosaurelio.com *1984 +2057 "Is there a Google afterlife? By uploading our thoughts and opinions onto the Internet, our knowledge lives on in Google's cache even after our death." http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/faq.html
