[umbrello] [Bug 403808] Realization of ball-and-socket notation for simple ports like in UML 2 structured classifiers specification

[bugzilla_noreply at kde.org]

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=403808

--- Comment #2 from sggdev.im at gmail.com ---
I think the best way is

"4. Reuse one of the available association type for supporting sockets"

Dependence association is the best candidat for this.

сб, 2 февр. 2019 г., 3:04 Ralf Habacker bugzilla_noreply at kde.org:

> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=403808
>
> Ralf Habacker <ralf.habacker at freenet.de> changed:
>
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  CC|                            |ralf.habacker at freenet.de
>
> --- Comment #1 from Ralf Habacker <ralf.habacker at freenet.de> ---
> > Umbrello need to implement one more connection type - Required
> Connection.
> Just some notes:
>
> 1. In UML (and umbrello) such connections are named associations (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_(object-oriented_programming))
>
> 2. The socket symbol has been introduced by UML to indicate a required
> interface (www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/componentDiagram.htm)
>
> 3. The current implementation of umbrello uses an UMLAssociation type
> 'association' connected to the interface for "providing" that interface.
>
> 4. in umbrello the interface get a socket symbol by adding an additional
> dependency or generalization.
>
> The question is how to add this new association type.
>
> Currently the following solutions come to my mind:
>
> 1. Take the orientation of the association as flag for showing the ball
> (provide) or socket (required). Adding the association from component to
> interface, means provide and from interface to component specifies
> require. The
> added association then needs a property to switch the direction  (relative
> easy
> to implement)
>
> 2. Add support for a <<required>> stereotype to specify a required
> interface
>
> 3. Another option would be to use a different association type (much more
> implementation work)
>
> 4. Reuse one of the available association type for supporting sockets.
>
> I think it is required to check first if there are any UML2 related
> specifications to get an indication, which of the mentioned solution would
> be
> the best.
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.

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