<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1250">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#d8d0c8>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial CE" size=2>Hello folks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I am trying to figure out how to convert SQL (e.g. the
PostgreSQL flavor) into UML. I have come to a few ideas, so the work is being
done.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I have some big problems, however:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial CE" size=2>SQL has more properties of attributes than
UML. With UML (referring to the state of Umbrello 1.2 and current cvs): what do
I mean? in UML I have classifier scope, default value and that's all. I would
need things like primary key (ok, I can simulate that with a built-in function),
unique, (not) null, etc. Nikolaus Gradwohl, the first author of the SQL
generator made it so that these additional fields were set in the documentation
- not too clear.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial CE" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>An alternative implementation is to have a member function
(ok, method) with the name of that field, one parameter (a string) and set the
list of attributes in the default value. e.g.:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>unique(attribs : string = "col1, col2, col3");</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>not too clear either.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The latter method adds more possible problems in the design.
So a "design-checker" would be needed too...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If I put parameters in the documentation, they may be
accidentally deleted. Not fair either.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>There would be a solution: </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A) add wizards for SQL and use the second method (I think it
is clearer, for the things are shown in the diagram)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>or</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>B) modify Umbrello so that these additinal attributes are
saved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>With option B I think we would violate the standards,
though.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>My next problem is foreign keys. They have plenty of
attributes. So I need an association class. I know I can simulate an association
class by splitting the association and inserting a class in the middle, but
that's rude... So my question is:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>are association classes planned to be implemented in near
future? if so, how? As far as I know (but I may be wrong), associations are
associations and UML objects are UML objects and they don't mess with each
other... So adding this would require throwing out the engine and putting a new
one in. But: would the standard allow us to do an association class so that
there would be no dashed line to the association, just a class in the middle,
marked as an assoc. class? If so, adding such functionality would be no big
deal, I think I could manage it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Is there anyone else out there who misses operation copying
except for me? It would be really helpful (not to mention
reordering)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>That is all for the time being...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>cheers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Zoltan</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>