I agree with Eugene ... with a dream : For navigation and qucik overviews of code that it's not yours, CLASS diags ar not enough.
quickly building a SEQUENCE (or the equivalent INTERACTION) diagram would be too useful. This is why one continuosly navigates in source code: to see what's happening in the called object. Unfortunately, done automatically, the generated diags would stop at a call to an interface ... but here IDEA could prompt for a list of known implementations ... and generation will proceed until one is happy ... Edo > -----Original Message----- > From: Eugene Belyaev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 22 November 2001 15:14 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Eap-features] J2EE integration and UML capabilities > > > There are two main use cases of using a UML tool: > > 1) When designing some large subsystems it's very convenient > to work with a modeling tool. Here a lot of different types > of UML diagrams can be useful. It's also useful that tools > like Together automatically round-trip code for you. The > drawback is that it needs to store a lot of meta-information > in the code, thus leaving a lot of comments. > 2) For navigation and quick overviews of the code. The only > really useful tool here is an ability to look at a class > diagram quickly built from the source code. > > I would not want IDEA to go for the #1, but #2 is definitely > desired a lot. > > Best regards, > > Eugene Belyaev > IntelliJ Software, http://www.intellij.com > "Develop with pleasure" > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stephan > > J. Schmidt > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 5:07 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Eap-features] J2EE integration and UML capabilities > > > > > > -1 > > > > Do not bloat IDEA. I do not need UML in idea. You usually > > modell something and when writing code, you only remodell > > from time to time. You can use an UML tool for modelling, > > export to XMI and use XSL to generate the classes. We use > > something similiar, we generate not only the UML defined > > classes but usually a lot of support classes (forms, session > > beans, XML converter). For deployment descriptors and > > interfaces we use xDoclet, which is fine. We only need IDEA > > to understand the relationships between > > remote/home/local/business classes and interfaces, > > > > my 2c > > bye > > -stephan > > > > On Thu, 2001-11-22 at 09:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > These are my wishes, I know there's been talk of UML capabilities > > > earlier and I really look forward to seeing it :) A strong > > integration > > > with J2EE would also be very nice thing to have (for me > it's a must > > > have, but maybe not for others). Here I'm especially > thinking about > > > deployment for multiple server (CMP 2.0 deployment also) and easy > > > debugging/testing. I the last point is a huge one, but it > > would still > > > be very nice. Together has nice UML and J2EE integration, > but their > > > editor is really bad compared to the raw power of IDEA. > > > > > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > > > /Jeppe > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Eap-features mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Eap-features mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-> features > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Eap-features mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features > _______________________________________________ Eap-features mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellij.com/mailman/listinfo/eap-features
