[Uml-devel] user story

[Jonathan Riddell]

Some brief comments...

> the reason i use visio, and others in my class (including the professor),
> agree with my reasoning, is that its a better modeling program. it's built
> around a layout engine that extends really, really well to UML - and that's
> important. UML is a visual medium for describing the structure and behavior
> of software systems so it needs to be as visually appealing as possible. rose
> falls way short on that one. unfortunately, umbrello seems to be following
> behind rose. i think it would be a good idea (a really good idea) to spend
> some time focusing on the pure drawing and layout capabilities of the system.
> maybe a grid that objects snap to. maybe connection points that associations,
> links and messages attach to. maybe the inclusion of non-UML elements like
> callouts, block shapes and text to enhance the visual appearance of models.

I can't really comment on Visio, I've never used it.
You can use a grid and snap to it.  See the properties dialogue for your
diagram (right click, or diagram menu with CVS version).

I've been thinking the same about non UML stuff like boxes etc.  You can
already add a simple text label (as well as a UML note).

> another reason i ended up like visio was because i could actually make object
> diagrams - diagrams of instances of objects and their relationships to other
> instances. naturally, these are fundamentally different than class diagrams.
> anyway, you can't do this in rose or umbrello. My suggestion is to take the
> concept element and decompose it into the different things it can actually
> represent - classes, parameterized classes, interfaces, datatypes,
> exceptions, objects, etc. having a larger vocabulary might mean a little more
> code, but it also means users can better express their intentions. it also
> means that a verification engine will be able deal with the semantics of
> individual types.

Diagrams which use objects are sequence diagrams and collaboration
diagrams.

> finally, (and not really a feature request, but a design idea). I like the way
> that viso deals with visualizing UML elements. they offer a list of
> stereotypes (simple text tags).  Each stereotype corresponds to (derives
> from?) some class within the system.  The class is simply a drawing class. If
> an element's stereotype is type X, then it is drawn by the corresponding
> drawing class. Also, when you create an object of a certain type, the system
> limits the only possible stereotypes to be those defined to derive from that
> element you just created.  For example, <<interface>> is one of the
> stereotypes of Class. so, when i create an interface, it is drawn be the
> Class drawer. also, <<interface>> is included in a dropdown combo box that
> lists all stereotypes associated with the Class object. neat, huh?

Predefined stereotypes are on my mental to do list as well, although I
don't think I've written it down anywhere.

Jonathan Riddell