chr_h wrote:firstly something I wanted to tell you many years ago (back when bouml was still FOSS) - your UML modeller is simply the best. And I've tried quite a few, both free (ArgoUML, Umbrello, ...) and commercial (mainly Rational Rose). Before I found bouml, I ended up using pen and paper, simply because no tool suited my needs. So, thanks for bouml! It's a pity that it isn't more wide-spread, in my opinion it deserves more recognition.
chr_h wrote:- Instead of displaying a grid in the diagrams, I would find it more helpful to (a) only display the "crossings" of horizontal and vertical grid lines (a "dot grid")
chr_h wrote:... and (b) enable a "snap to" these points, allowing easier alignment of relations and classes/objects/...
chr_h wrote:- I can edit the drawing settings; however, they don't seem to be stored for a new diagram. For example, I find shadows unhelpful and always disable them. Would be nice to do once and store the settings.
chr_h wrote:- In parameterized classes ("templates" in C++) the box for the parameter names depends the class width, making it very wide for classes showing full function declarations. If its size would only depend on the parameter name, it would look better I think (plus, leave more space for relations).
chr_h wrote:- The "zoom"-method doesn't zoom everything evenly. Especially when changing the "geometry" of relations in a different zoom level, things get mixed up (e.g., horizontal lines don't stay horizontal)
chr_h wrote:- A possibility to "anchor" labels at certain points on their relations would be nice. I.e., select a label center and snap it to the beginning/middle/end of a relation, where it will stay (relative to the relation). With many relations entereing a class from the same side, the labels are often drawn "over" the relation to the right, where centering would be more readable.
chr_h wrote:In this context it would also be helpful to rotate the labels to match the relation's angle.
chr_h wrote:- Also, I sometimes have labels in the middle of nowhere. To handle those, it would be nice to get to the relation dialog when (double-)clicking on them, or some other help to find out to which relation they do belong
The minimum width of the formals box is half of the class width, I did that choice because I supposed this proportion is nice
chr_h wrote:The zoom...
... (as relative class dimesions change with zoom level). Just floating an idea... you could think about another level of "semantic zoom": for class diagrams,
for example, you could scale the dimensions of the "box" exactly, and remove the written content, except, for example, the class name. Then, the name
could be displayed large enough to be readable (which it currently isn't for low zoom values), and the function/parameter names are removod altogether
(which currently aren't readable anyways when zoomed out).
chr_h wrote:And finally, the labels...
Concerning your last diagram the stereotype is far of its relations because you moved the label by hand, or there is a bug I don't know
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest