RE: [Mapbuilder-devel] Re: [Jsdoc-user] status of XMI/UML export?

[Kralidis,Tom [Burlington] <Tom...@ec...>]

>=20
> Gabriel,
> I'm very excited.  This is great.
> I've just reverse engineered our JS code and I seem to be
> able to view=20
> all our class diagrams, including classes, class=20
> dependancies, functions=20
> and internal variables.
>=20
> This is the main requirement I was looking for.
> What else are you considering incorporating?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Do any of the commercial UML tools do this?
>=20

I just tried this in Enterprise Architect and it imports the XMI
generated by jsdoc.  NICE!!!!!

As Gabriel mentions, it only outputs the class hierarchies.  i.e. I
would need to write my own component diagram which USES the output
classes.  A nice thing would be to have something to generate a
component diagram which lays out the classes, etc. into a view.  Mind
you, I'm not sure if that's a job for jsdoc or a given software project
like mapbuilder to build our own layouts.

..Tom


> We also need to think about breaking all our classes into their
> directory structures.
>=20
> Gabriel Reid wrote:
>=20
> >Hi Cameron,
> >
> > =20
> >
> >>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.
> >>   =20
> >>
> >
> >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=20
> 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=20
> 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=20
> shouldn't
> >present too much of a problem.
>=20