On 11/11/2010 2:09 AM, Ralf Nyren wrote:
> 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