I'll rename the sequence2 package soons so let me know if anyone disagrees with my suggestion.
I've just realised that some diagram modules will want to register critics so we will in theory also need org.argouml.core.diagrams.sequence2.cognitive Are we happy that this pattern is used for packages as other diagrams are extracted? Bob. 2008/5/1 Bob Tarling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The new sequence diagram implementation proves how easy it is to keep > a particular diagram type within its own clear subsystem as a separate > eclipse project loaded at runtime as a plugin. > > I'd like to go ahead and do this with the other diagram types. I think > the more we begin to move stuff out of argouml-app the clearer it will > be how to move the rest. > > Initially I'd just like to move the packages in their current > structure but eventually I'd like to refactor into a flatter package > structure. > > The sequence diagrams I should be able to refactor sooner rather than > later though. I'll use that as an example of what I'd like to see > > First of all I'd like the base package structure to echo our new > naming convention > > So we will have > > org.argouml.core.diagrams.sequence2 > > In that base package I would expect no classes > > The subpackages would contain the implementations > > org.argouml.core.diagrams.sequence2.plugin - The module class > org.argouml.core.diagrams.sequence2.diagram - The sequence2 extension > of the diagrams subsystem > org.argouml.core.diagrams.sequence2.proppanel - The sequence2 > extension of the proppanels subsystem > > > We seem to use the term module and plugin interchangeably. Could we > settle on one. I would suggest plugin as it tends to fit eclipse > terminology better. > > Bob. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
