https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=403808
--- Comment #3 from Gerhard Landsmann <seppt...@freenet.de> --- PLEASE GET ME OFF THE DISTRIBUTION!!! Am 03.02.19 um 10:22 schrieb bugzilla_nore...@kde.org: > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=403808 > > --- Comment #2 from sggdev...@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_nore...@kde.org: > >> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=403808 >> >> Ralf Habacker <ralf.habac...@freenet.de> changed: >> >> What |Removed |Added >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> CC| |ralf.habac...@freenet.de >> >> --- Comment #1 from Ralf Habacker <ralf.habac...@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 watching all bug changes.
