The model (In fact, maybe digging through the source?) made the
picture clearer for me.
My small problem is that I have to do this model anyway:
- the app is for my college degree
- there is a company who sponsors the work
Both resist on the UML model :-(
I don't like it also, but it is a _must_.
Thursday, October 27, 2005, 2:25:53 PM, you wrote:
> On Thursday 27 October 2005 07:49, Adam Groszer wrote:
>> I tried to keep it simple, but you're right I missed the work items.
>> Now I updated the model also with the attributes and methods by using
>> pyreverse. I hope it did not miss any.
> The graph does not establish the link between an application and the work
> items. In fact, it does not show the separation between workflow definition
> and implementation at all.
> Also, may I ask what this UML diagram does for you? I find this much harder to
> read than the README.txt files. If I would not know how zope.wfmc the graph
> would certainly not help me, because it still does not give any hint of what
> is described by XPDL and what has to be Python coded.
Adam mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quote of the day:
Memory should be the starting point of the present.
Zope3-dev mailing list