Re: [argouml-dev] NormalProfileCpp and ProfileJava constructor discrepancies

[Luis Sergio Oliveira]

Bob Tarling wrote: I've just been looking at the use of Profile.addProfileDependency and where it is called. I was wondering how much profiles need to know about eachother internally or whether this relationship should be held somewhere extrernal to the Profile itself. I see that NormalProfileCpp and ProfileJava have different constructors for this. NormalProfileCpp has knowledge of the UML profile built into its default constructor. The default constructor of ProfileJava is unused. Instead it uses a constructor where the UML profile is passed in as an external argument. Which is more correct? Hi Bob, well, both AFAIK. The thing that creates ProfileJava (ProfileManagerImpl) has a reference to the UML profile, so, it simply handles it to Profilejava. The objects that create NormalProfileCpp objects have no knowledge of the UML profile and when I thought about it, I considered that it would be unfair NormalProfileCpp to impose this burden on the objects that needed to build it. So, basically all the other ProfileXxx classes - mainly from external modules - will have to do similar things to NormalProfileCpp. Has it been tested how well the system reacts to the IllegalArgumentException coming from addProfileDependency if a circular dependency is introduced? A question for Marcus... AFAI care, this will simply be caught in integration tests. Violet || violet [is it better capitalized or in lower case only? Be fair, give me your honest opinion... It is important I get this right!] Bob. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]