On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 12:47:30AM -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:42:39PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 03:18:55AM -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote: > > > > > > > after all, if you find some time, please have a look at UML. it was > > > > started by Rationale and is now "developed" by the OMG (the ones that make > > > > CORBA spec if i got that right...). even if you don't like CORBA :) > > > > > > > > http://www.omg.org/uml/ tutorials, introductions etc. can be found in > > > > your favourite search engine or library > > [much removed] > > If you recall, the component description language I am working on has > two major design goals: > > 1. It is directly readable and parseable by Perl. POE will be able to > load it as components are used and register various aspects of them > that are not normally available.
Possible with various formats. > > 2. It is directly readable and parseable-- as text-- by humans. These > descriptions will exist in POD, and they will actually be part of > the documentation for a module. This will always ensure a minimum > standard of documentation is included with every working component. The graphical presentation is not needed. I agree that this is overhead that is not useful when working without a GUI. For other diagrams than class diagrams this might not be true, as anything not graphical results in "code" that is as easy to read as a state machine described in plain text. Class diagrams are what we could use most, so this shouldn't matter. A textual presentation is easy to do and is similar to a class declaration. The advantage of the graph presentation can be created by an external viewer. I have used an OCL tool that did this and it was ok. It basically used the meanings of the graph's entities as keywords. I think that we should do it the same way. But we should try to specify the subset that we are going to use first. The prototype notation could be helpful, things like that. torvald
