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

[SeppTech]

PLEASE GET ME OFF THE DISTRIBUTION!!!


Am 03.02.19 um 10:22 schrieb 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.