Well, also various types are FUBAR. Anyway, the XMI model is probably rather incomplete in terms of type imports and the like, and -- in its current state -- is probably not suitable for roundtrip engineering. Would be great if someone could volunteer for polishing this towards a fully compliant XMI model, with all the gory details... I certainly won't. -Alexander Am 11.11.2010 um 10:09 schrieb Ralf Nyren:
True, overall ok but the UML-to-Java tool does not seem to have taken the association multiplicity into account. As Thijs says, there should be Set<Entity> etc.
regards, Ralf
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:55:13 +0100, Thijs Metsch <tmetsch@platform.com> wrote:
Generally looks good I guess - thanks for this Gary - very helpful!
I'm just wondering if the Entity's mixin attribtue should be a set...That's what the core diagram says at least...
Thanks,
-Thijs
-----Original Message----- From: occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org on behalf of Gary Mazz Sent: Wed 10/11/2010 08:34 To: occi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [occi-wg] OCCI Core ready for public comment version Hi,
I tool the opportunity to auto generate code from the UML. We should take a look at it and see if this is what we really mean.
cheers, gary
On 11/8/2010 7:50 PM, Michael Behrens wrote:
The diagram looks good & reads well to me. Thanks.
Ralf Nyren wrote:
Michael,
Please find attached a version of the core model with Kind split into two separate classes. Was it something like this you were looking for?
To me it makes sense to do the split. Before we had the abstraction between Category and Kind it was tempting to stuff all functionality into the Category. I do not think it is anymore.
I think this, exactly as you say Michael, definitely help clear things up a bit :)
If there are any objections I need them asap, if this is going in I need to start updating the core doc tomorrow. And if anyone has a better name than "Mixin" please speak up!
regards, Ralf
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:35:34 +0100, Michael Behrens <michael.behrens@r2ad.com> wrote:
I see that the core UML model has been updated, interesting changes. The name changes look okay to me (Entity, Kind).
2-cents: Structural and Non-Structural concept might be confusing to folks reading it the first time through. Perhaps its purpose (extensibility) could be stated before their definitions in a non normative manner. Lastly, would adding two subclass of kind (structured/unstructured) help clear things a bit? (The text seems to speak as if there are two subclasses).
core_model.png
-- Michael Behrens R2AD, LLC (571) 594-3008 (cell) (703) 714-0442 (land)
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg