Thread: RE: [Jsdoc-user] status of XMI/UML export?
Status: Inactive
Brought to you by:
mmathews
From: Gabriel R. <Gab...@ex...> - 2004-11-16 07:48:49
|
> You mentioned earlier that you were considering an XMI export from=20 > jsdoc. I'm interested to know your thoughts on this and whether you=20 > have plans to develop the idea further. Yes, I'm planning on developing this further, but I can't put an exact = timeline on it. I'm certainly very interested in the idea. This week I'm = working on getting all (or at least most) of the current feature = requests taken care of, and then XML and XMI export are next on my list. = I could have something releasable by the end of next week, and if = there's interest in it I'll certainly try to get it ready ASAP. Gabriel |
From: Cameron S. <sho...@op...> - 2005-03-20 10:26:46
|
Gabriel, Have you advanced any further on the XMI export idea? We are about to revisit our design documentation for http://mapbuilder.sf.net and it would be useful to have XMI data to support it. Gabriel Reid wrote: >>You mentioned earlier that you were considering an XMI export from >>jsdoc. I'm interested to know your thoughts on this and whether you >>have plans to develop the idea further. >> >> > >Yes, I'm planning on developing this further, but I can't put an exact timeline on it. I'm certainly very interested in the idea. This week I'm working on getting all (or at least most) of the current feature requests taken care of, and then XML and XMI export are next on my list. I could have something releasable by the end of next week, and if there's interest in it I'll certainly try to get it ready ASAP. > >Gabriel > > > |
From: Gabriel R. <gab...@gm...> - 2005-03-20 11:04:52
|
Hi Cameron, > Have you advanced any further on the XMI export idea? We are about to > revisit our design documentation for http://mapbuilder.sf.net and it > would be useful to have XMI data to support it. First of all, sorry about repeatedly promising to get this done and then not getting it done. I do have a basic XMI export working, although it's not yet properly integrated in JSDoc. However, I'll either post a working copy on SF.net or email a copy of it to you later on this evening. Right now it just handles the class hierarchy; however, having the foundations down I think that filling out more functionality shouldn't present too much of a problem. Regards, Gabriel |
From: Cameron S. <sho...@op...> - 2005-03-20 20:53:36
|
Gabriel, I'm very excited. This is great. I've just reverse engineered our JS code and I seem to be able to view all our class diagrams, including classes, class dependancies, functions and internal variables. This is the main requirement I was looking for. What else are you considering incorporating? Mapbuilder people (and Gabriel), It would be great if someone knew of a tool which can automatically build class diagrams and place the classes on a page for you. Do any of the commercial UML tools do this? We also need to think about breaking all our classes into their directory structures. Gabriel Reid wrote: >Hi Cameron, > > > >>Have you advanced any further on the XMI export idea? We are about to >>revisit our design documentation for http://mapbuilder.sf.net and it >>would be useful to have XMI data to support it. >> >> > >I've just posted a version of JSDoc with basic support for XMI (and XML) >output; it's version 1.9.3. Please give it a try and let me know what >you'd like to see added/removed/changed/etc. > >To use the XMI export, use the "--format xmi" argument; for example: > > ./jsdoc.pl --format xmi test.js > >I do have a basic XMI export working, although it's not yet properly >integrated in JSDoc. However, I'll either post a working copy on SF.net or >email a copy of it to you later on this evening. > >Right now it just handles the class hierarchy; however, having the >foundations down I think that filling out more functionality shouldn't >present too much of a problem. > > >Regards, > > Gabriel > > > > > |
From: Cameron S. <sho...@op...> - 2005-03-21 09:57:15
|
Gabriel Reid wrote: >>What else are you considering incorporating? >> >> > >Things I was thinking of adding were text documentation within the XMI, >and additional relationships like composition and aggregation. > >If you or members of your development team have any more ideas or >requests or whatever, please don't hesitate to contact me. > >Regards, > > Gabriel > > Thanks Gabriel, It is very nice of you to offer. One more thing that would be useful would be to describe our directory structure as packages within the XMI. Ie, We have directories for widget, model, and tool. It would be good if jsdoc recognised a @package tag which I could put into the javascript. Eg: /** * Base Class for widgets. * @constructor * @package net.sourceforge.mapbuilder.widget * @author Mike Adair * @param widget Pointer to the widget instance being created * @param widgetNode The widget's XML object node from the configuration document. * @param model The model object that this widget belongs to. */ function WidgetBase(widget,widgetNode,model) { widget.model = model; widget.widgetNode = widgetNode; Alternatively, you could potentially extract the package name from the directory structure. Although I think that might be harder to support in jsdoc. |