Composite Element?

[Paolo F Cantoni]

The term Composite Element seems to be a misnomer for the fucntionality associated with it.

The functonality is fine, it's just the name that bothers me.  "Link to diagram" might be a better name?

In the light of the UML2 nesting (or containment) concept - which REALY is structuiral containment, it might make things less confusing (at least for me .

Paolo

[thomaskilian]

Why do you think that "link to diagram" is a better name? In fact a composite element is what it's name says. It is composed of other elements. Mainly this is used for activities, but you can also use it for other element types.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Actually,  Thomas you're right and you're wrong...  
The diagram _is_ composed of other elements, but they need bear no relationship to the higher level element.  

• I can change the name of the diagram.  
  
• I can place any objects I like on the diagram.
  
• The diagram name doesn't track the source element.
  
• There is no background relationship created between the source element and its "components"
  
• About the only thing that is relevant is that the diagram type is: composite structure.  And by having an already created digram of a different type under the source element, I can even get around that!
  

As two people have said to me at work in the last two weeks (about unrelated matters), "They're the same thing, except their names are different and their descriptions are different!"  

In my view, the functionality ACTUALLY is:

When the menu item is first executed:  
See if there is a pre-existing diagram under the element in the browser, if so link to it.
Otherwise, create a composite structure diagram with the same name as the element and link to it..

Now you see why I prefer "link to diagram".

Paolo

[thomaskilian]

Yes I see. As your colleagues said: Same thing but different viewpoint So you're right too.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Bump - to raise the profile of this issue again...

The following new proposal has been added: [size=13]Attaching diagrams to elements[/size] which is related to this post.

Related posts are to be found in: [size=13]Re: shape scripting/element properties[/size], [size=13]Double-Clicking for navigation[/size] and, perhaps most tellingly in: [size=13]Re: Default Diagram[/size] and [size=13]TIP: Adding Diagram to Interface element[/size]!

[Martin Terreni]

The name makes sense for me. I understood the meaning at moment I sow it.  Even if the name is wrong, it is surly clear (at least for us it was....)

[thomaskilian]

Martin, you should read Paolo's statement above more thoroughly. It actually makes more sense. Only that we got used to a misleading description must not mean we have to stick to it.

[Martin Terreni]

I did and it does, it just leaves a few questions open for me.
I just posted them in the suggestions thread.