[umbrello-devel] [umbrello] [Bug 345029] Roadmap to use model/view

[Ralf Habacker]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=345029

--- Comment #4 from Ralf Habacker <ralf.habacker at freenet.de> ---
(In reply to Oliver Kellogg from comment #3)
> At https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87104#c5, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> > (In reply to Oliver Kellogg from comment #4)
> > > [...]
> > > How would this class hierarchy view be different from the current tree view? 
> > The recent tree view shows  a "package hierarchy" in the opposite to the
> > derived and base classes , which would form the hierarchy.
> 
> Ah, I see.
> I suppose the hierarchy would hinge on the generalization/realization
> associations among classes.   

Looking into refactoringassistant.cpp shows, that the refactoring assistant is
based on UMLAssociation instances, so there is no difference under the hood. 

> OTOH, generally I feel it unsatisfactory that Umbrello lacks a
> representation of the UMLAssociations in the list view.
> See for example the Logical View at
> http://www.uwgb.edu/breznayp/cs372/rational.htm :
> Rational Rose uses a simple line for (uni and bi directional) associations.
> Further, it uses a line with a solid arrow for generalization/realization,
> and a dashed line for dependency.
> The advantage is that this includes not only generalization/realization but
> all UMLAssoication types.
looks good.

> The UMLAssociation can be manipulated in the tree view independent of
> diagrams, for example can be moved or deleted, or a double click could open
> a properties dialog for the association.

which would also fix bug 332371 :-)

> Perhaps I should open a separate wish for this?

yes, will be good to track related commits.

There is still the question, if such an implementation would include
refactoring the tree view to the model/view design pattern ?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.