[Uml-devel] Re: CVS developer access

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Jens [iso-8859-1] Krüger wrote:

> Am Dienstag, 15. Oktober 2002 00:20 schrieb Jonathan Riddell:
> > > > That worked brilliantly.  How close do you think that is to being ready
> > > > to put in CVS?
> > >
> > > I'm ready to put it into the CVS. I put all changes in the current code
> > > without removing the clip functionality. So should it be possible to
> > > import the most of the old uml files down to version 4 (version 1-3 not
> > > included in the import code, I think this is not necessary).
> I did not understand this. I attached the diff against the CVS, so all may try
> my patch. I compressed it with bzip2 because the list mails are limited (to
> about 50k ?) per mail.  Or did you mean the additional support of the
> versions 1-3?

You quote your own e-mail above, what don't you understand?  I suggested
posting it as a patch again to the list so we would look at your
serliaisation() changed (which I'm pretty sure I remember you saying you
had altered to stop it interfereing with the clipboard).

> > > There are also some changes in the writing the XMI file. I think we
> > > should be compliant to the 1.2 specification of the XMI. There are some
> > > fix entries they should be changed in the version we put into the CVS.
> > > These entries are the user name and the email address of the user. We
> > > should add this information to the umbrello getting from the KDE and the
> > > mail setup. Has anybody an idea how this works?

> Do you have the specification of the 1.1 format? It read in the 1.0 and 1.2
> that in the documentation section may be  an entry for owner and  an entry
> for contact.
> I think it would be a good idea to implement the UML according to a standard.
> We may decide for the version 1.0, 1.1, 1.3 or 1.4, but we should define the
> version of UML spec we want to support!
> In this case our xml file should be compliant to this standard.

It's XMI that were wanting to support, version 1.2 preferablly.  There is
no 1.3 or 1.4 (that's UML).

I may well be in the XMI spec but I'm not convinced that it's a useful
feature.  There are privacy issues and what happens if the file is edited
by someone else?  But if you think it's worth having then by all means put
it in.

> > We should use the file format as it stands for 1.1.

By which I means Umbrello 1.1

Jonathan Riddell