Hi,
our concept of profiles is different from what the UML2 spec is talking about.
In ArgoUML, any XMI represented model (so no diagrams) can be a profile, but in
UML2 a profile is a different meta package instance with only stereotypes in
it. So we can't put e.g. datatypes in it. On the other hand, stereotype
definitions can't be in a UML model, they can be only in UML2 profiles, so we
must support UML2 profiles anyway.
How should we map our profiles to UML2 profiles?
My suggestions:
- let's distinguish our profiles from UML2 profiles
- consider naming change: 'project profile' and 'UML profile'
- our profile ('project profile') will no longer be a model instance
- it will consist of two elements: a UML2 profile and a model
- it is a new meta class instance with 2 attributes (profile+model)
Is this feasible, or is there a simpler way?
Is it correct that in such a project profile we can't stereotype elements,
because this would make it depend on another profile? For example, we can't
require to stereotype the model with <<profile>>, because the "root" profile
can't apply a <<profile>> stereotype.
Thomas
--
Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss
für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!*
http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a
------------------------------------------------------
http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=2107815
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail:
[[email protected]].
To be allowed to post to the list contact the mailing list moderator, email:
[[email protected]]
