[Uml-devel] 2.0 design consideration

[Andrew Sutton]

On Sunday 23 February 2003 3:58 pm, Luis De la Parra Blum wrote:
> On Sunday 23 February 2003 21:48, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> > > It definitely does, since slots&signals are a really great feature of
> > > the Qt.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > One question though: How is that kind of stuff implemented in
> > > Umbrello 1.x?
> >
> > You can't, care to implement it?
>
> I think andy was talking about adding signals to the UML implementation
> itself -->the UMLClass class has a signal "modified(string attribute,
> string newValue)"

yes - but using the actual UML metamodel specification as the foundation (so 
instead of UMLClass, its UML::Class). oh. and i already wrote it - a little 
differently though. every attribute and reference supported by a UML::Class 
has a corresponding signal. so, for example, if you change the visibility of 
a class using visibility(VisibilityKind *value), then the signal 
visibilityChanged() is emitted. i suppose i could condense the number of 
signlas. it doesn't really matter. all this stuff is generated from an XMI 
document anyway. we can tweak the design as much as we want without too many 
ramifications.

> I dont think he meant adding signals support to the objects of UMLClass
> ("user classes"), which would be very nice as well, but has to be
> implemented, IMHO, via tags/stereotypes

it should be synonymous. instantiations of UML::* are "user classes" - or 
"user something" to be more appropriate. we shouldn't have to do anything 
extra to make this work.

andy