[Bluej-discuss] Uses arrows in BlueJ class diagrams

[Paul McCard]

I'd like to second this.  In particular, the ability to automatically 
distinguish between dependencies and associations would be really helpful. 

I can see an argument for allowing users to "hide" some simple 
dependencies because we would often  not bother to show many of them 
(i.e. we would "supress" them, to use the UML lingo) on a UML class 
diagram, but there should be a way of reverting back to the fully 
notated diagram.

Paul.

Axel Schmolitzky wrote:

>Hello BlueJers,
>
>one of the (very) few things I don't like about BlueJ is the handling of 
>the uses arrows in the class diagram of a project.
>
>It is possible in BlueJ to "declare" a uses relation between two classes 
>via the uses button. Such an arrow persists, even if there is no 
>dependency in the source of the origin class of the connection. It is 
>even possible to remove a connecting arrow, even though a source 
>dependency exists. A "rebuild package" does not "repair" this. In 
>essence this means that the uses arrows in BlueJ can become meaningless 
>quite easily.
>
>This is only a problem of the uses arrows. The inheritance arrows are 
>automatically kept in sync with the source, in both directions (source 
>to diagram and diagram to source), as there is always a unique direct 
>mapping.
>
>I would prefer the diagram to be an exact representation of the source, 
>also with the uses arrows. This would only be possible if the uses 
>button were removed, because for such an action in the diagram there is 
>no exact counterpart in the source that the BlueJ system could introduce.
>
>The crucial question is: Is there any BlueJ user out there that would 
>miss this functionality? I hope not.
>
>If the button were removed the uses arrows in the diagram could be 
>enhanced: a distinction could be made between a simple dependency 
>(current dashed line style) and a structural dependency (a solid line). 
>The former is used if the origin class declares a parameter or local 
>variable of the target class while the latter is used if the origin 
>class declares an instance variable of the target class. This is a 
>little closer to the UML and would help teaching UML with BlueJ.
>
>I put this request here to see whether there is any chance for a change 
>like this.
>
>	Axel
>
>
>  
>