Hi Mark Notations are nothing new, it is just this implementation that is new.
Try selecting File->Notations->Java and dropping some classes on a diagram. However what we don't currently have are notations implemented for the new UML2 diagrams. There has been talk of refactoring the notations for some time but I'd prefer to implement a brand new diagram based on fresh principles and not waiting for the refactoring to catch up. The problem many Figs have at the comment is that they redraw too frequently partly because they listen to far too many things or redraw completely instead of only partly redrawing.. With these new diagrams I'm trying to get a better architecture so that Fig listen to the minimum they need to. For that the notations also need to fire less. If I can prove this method for a new diagram type then there is no chance of me breaking the notation in the process for our existing diagrams. As other diagrams begin to become modules of their own they can migrate at that stage to the new notation system. Regards Bob On 7 April 2011 17:37, Mark Fortner <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Bob, > Just to be clear, this framework is meant to store the information about the > items in the diagram > (typically the data that we currently find in the XMI file) is that right? > And would there still be the same degree of correspondence between the > diagrams and the > XMI file that exists today? By that I mean that if we see a Fig whose ID is > 123 then the > XMI file will also contain an item whose ID is 123? > You describe the NotationLanguage interface as "The interface that any > notation languages should > implement (e.g. UML, Java etc)." I assume that the NotationLanguage for > Java would mean > some Java-specific notation like perhaps "annotations" like > "@PostInitialization" or "@Test". > Is that correct? > How would NotationLanguages be registered with the NotationUtility? Would > this be through the > Services API (or some other discovery mechanism), or hard-coded? > Regards, > Mark > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Bob Tarling <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> For UML2 activity diagrams I halted for a while thinking about how to >> apply notations. I think the notations are an incredibly important >> subsystem as they remove knowledge of both GEF and so will help with >> any move to a different diagram implementation should it be required >> in future. >> >> I have prepared something on the wiki regarding how I would like to >> see notations split out into its own module and improved - >> http://argouml.tigris.org/wiki/Notation_Architecture >> >> I'd appreciate any feedback. >> >> I propose to leave the old notation architecture in place while this >> is developed for the UML2 activity diagram only. >> >> Once this is working I'll move the state diagram forward to a similar >> level of functionality and move any common code for state and activity >> into another shared module. >> >> Regards >> >> Bob >> >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> >> http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=2717692 >> >> 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]] > > ------------------------------------------------------ http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=2717786 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]]
