> > From: Michael Ross <michael.e.r...@gmail.com> > > "Other than to write my own shapes" This is the only way any shapes arise. > Someone has to do it. > > Michael: fair enough, I phrased the question badly. I guess I should have asked "Does anyone know of any attempts to facilitate UML 2 for Dia (either directly via Dia shapes or indirectly via something like ArgoUML and conversion scripts)?"
> From: Alejandro Imass <aim...@yabarana.com> > > What exactly are you missing for UML 2? We use the UML 2 standard with > DIA (albeit not religiously a la OMG/Rational) but we are very fluent > in V2 and we use DIA for all our work. Can you provide an example of > what you are trying to do? > Alejandro: a fair question. Unfortunately this was a bit of a 'fire-and-forget' post, as the UML modelling work I did that brought up some apparent shortcomings was quite a long time ago. I'm in the middle of some other work and don't have time to go back over it (I'm not even sure which particular diagram types I had frustrations with), but I appreciate that I probably can't expect too much help without more details! I may also not have 'thought laterally' enough in terms of adapting existing shapes for my needs. If/when I have time, I'll go back through everything and post again. Out of interest, what are the normal set of diagram types you use and where (if at all) do you need to use shapes outside the UML set? (I know that, in principle in UML 2, these are not rigid divisions...) Regards, Stuart
_______________________________________________ dia-list mailing list dia-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia
