Moin!
jph writes:
> Well, first of all, I don't like the connection points. I just want to
> be able to drag a connection (dependency, association, aggregation, ...)
> from one object to another and not having to hit a connection point to
> make the connection 'stick'. (As a side point I like this connection to
> be a straight line with the option of adding breakpoints as I please,
> not the strict horizontal/vertical that we have now.) This connection
> should slide along the edge if I move the nearest breakpoint (which can
> be the endpoint of the line) to the side. This behavior is common in
> many commercial design tools and it is quite intuitive to use.
>
> If we have to stick with the connection points, I would like them evenly
> spaced along the edge and fairly tightly packed. If you make an object
> larger you get more connection points, if you make it smaller you get
> fewer connection points. This can put a constraint on the minimum size
> of an object (given that you have fixed connection point spacing) as you
> can have a connection on point 2 and another connection on point 10.
> Then you can't resize the object in such a way that connection point 10
> gets removed, as you would then loose the connection. This problem would
> not surface if the connections were allowed to slide along the edge as I
> mention above.
I'd prefered a way to select this on an Object basis. Evenly spaced
connections with no defined points (changing in number when the
object is resized) may be the right way for one type of objects or
diagrams. On the other side there would be objects (for example
routers in network-diagrams) where you want to define a fixed
number of connection points representing the ports of the hardware.
Charly!
--
Karl Skibinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cys.de/
CyberSolutions GmbH, Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14, D-80807 Muenchen/Germany
phone: +49 89 32369223 fax: +49 89 32369220
