Hi Tony There are two problems I see
1) ArgoUML is still being untangled from a big ball of spaghetti code. 2) Automated diagrams based on packages don't describe enough. By just creating a diagrams based on package means that often you will not see graphically that a model element in that package extends something from another package or has an association across packages. For many packages you will see just a bunch of unconnected boxes. This stands out in ArgoUML particularly as we seem to have level of separation of classes into packages that I think isn't truly needed. Our package split is rather heavy and so we are more likely not to see these relationships. So in order to see some sense from the model the user needs to create their own diagrams and drag classes from various packages together to really visualize the relationships. This takes quite some time and effort. But then somebody changes the code. It's no coincidence that I've just created issue 5242 and 5243. What happens when someone does some mass refactoring to move classes between packages? ArgoUML has no way of knowing that those classes have moved. Where a user has gone to a lot of effort to carefully place all those classes in the right place he then finds on the next attempt at reverse engineering that those diagrams have not been updated and still show as if the classes exist in their old location. With ArgoUML still being picked apart from this tangle of code then that kind of refactoring will continue. The slow separation of ArgoUML into components I think will help. I think the Model component and the Model/MDR component are stable enough to model and will remain relatively stable. I imagine Model/EUML should also be stable enough that we are at least unlikely to have any mass refactoring going on. We could model those components and their relationships. I don't think the other parts are going to become stable enough to do this until they also have been extracted into separate components (modules/plugins). Sequence2 is the first of these but for the moment, before it goes live, I am considering some change to the package structure or clearer naming. I feel it's important to get that right before other diagrams follow suit and become separate components. As components then have a clearer interface we can model their relationships to each other and that is likely to remain quite stable. With some flatter repackaging going on during the extraction to these components we should also have better information in the auto-generated diagrams showing the internals of those components. So, what you say does makes sense. We should be able to eat our own dog food. But I think we have a few more issues to resolve in the RE processing and some more separation and stability required in the product as a whole. Bob. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
