On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Andreas Rueckert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you agree with Michiel, that we should create some classifier then, and > assign the activity > there? And then put this classifier in the current namespace? No, I would just do it exactly the way it's done today, unless there's a compelling reason to change (which I don't see yet). If you fire up ArgoUML 0.28 and create a new Activity Diagram, you get an unnamed ActivityGraph owned by the top level Model. It doesn't make a lot of sense to have an ActivityGraph which describes the behavior of a Package (which is what Model is), but it's simple. The UML 2.x equivalent would be to create an Activity which is owned by the top-level Model. It doesn't make any less sense than the UML 1.4 implementation. An Activity Graph/Activity *should* have a Classifier as its context, but the user can fix that up later (or perhaps they're just drawing a quick sketch and don't care). Tom ------------------------------------------------------ http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=2357153 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]]
