Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I gather that Rocco Caputo would prefer a textual notation > that looks like Perl. Whereas torvald is recommending XMI.
Considering what Torvalds thinks for an object modelling language seems strange. Is the kernel OO? I really dislike the man's coding style as well. Documentation far too yin. The approach I am working on is modelling structure with a web based front-end; http://sam.vilain.net/tangram/schema1.png http://sam.vilain.net/tangram/schema2.png http://sam.vilain.net/tangram/class.png ....and storing the actual class information in a data structure (which may or may not come from a database), then generating .pm files from that structure. The last screenshot is browsing in-memory symbol tables, not the official object structure. These .pm files are classes that represent UML Classes, Attributes and Methods: http://sam.vilain.net/tangram/Class.pm http://sam.vilain.net/tangram/Attribute.pm http://sam.vilain.net/tangram/Method.pm Once you have your class structure in this form you can call Class->as_string to convert to a .pm file. For the majority of simple classes (ie, mostly data + some methods) this is perfect. At any point, you can decide that a module should not be stored in the database and is just a normal .pm file by setting a flag. Flat files are an awful way for humans to examine and edit data structures. Don't restrict yourself to it. -- Sam Vilain, [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://sam.vilain.net/ 7D74 2A09 B2D3 C30F F78E GPG: http://sam.vilain.net/sam.asc 278A A425 30A9 05B5 2F13 Real computer scientists love the concept of users. Users are always real impressed by the stuff computer scientists are talking about; it sure sounds better than the stuff they are being forced to use now.
