On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Thomas Neustupny <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Currently I think that comments are the >> > only way to store documentation in the model and make this tab functional >> > again. >> >> This would also imply that all the other ArgoUML specific tagged >> values (@author, @since, @version, @deprecated, etc) are going to get >> dropped. I haven't looked closely at the spec, but it seems like >> there should be a way to have an ArgoUML profile with any needed >> properties. > > It has disadvantages to introduce mandatory profiles to maintain that > functionality (and the documentation tab I talked about before). I love > profiles, but if there is a way to use plain UML, then I'd prefer that way. > Maybe put these attributes in a UML comment associated with the model > instance? I'll think about it, your suggestions are welcome. > Well, profiles are a standard part of UML, of course, but I understand the concern about additional complexity. Given that UML defines its own standard profile and that they are more and more widely used, I'm not sure having an ArgoUML profile is so bad. I certainly think it's better to explicitly model things than put them in a free text comment that someone has to parse. I'll have to do more investigation to see if there are other options. >> here: http://www.omgwiki.org/model-interchange/doku.php (I'm in the mailing >> list and have an actual internal compatibility matrix for the listed vendors, >> if someone is interested.) >> >> Is there a reason not to put the matrix on the wiki? As far as the >> OMG goes, I tried to get ArgoEclipse included over a year ago and did >> models which conformed to their original experiment. Kenn Hussey >> checked with the OMG who said it was restricted to members only. > > The matrix is most probably confidential as long as it is under discussion > among the vendors (which it is), and until all vendors agree to publish it. > That's my impression about the discussions on the mailing list. Shall we > collaborate in any way to get ArgoEclipse/ArgoUML included? My plan was to > first get something to work from their use cases and then contact them on > their mailing list. > Sorry, I misread what you said. I thought you had created the matrix. I didn't realize it was the product of someone else. When I submitted models before it was through Kenn Hussey as the Eclipse rep to the OMG to see if he could be a proxy for all implementors using the Eclipse UML2 plugin. If the OMG has changed their "members-only" stance and allowed you to participate, that's a definitive improvement. Tom ------------------------------------------------------ http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=2609201 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]]
