[dna-dev] Adding umlgraph to our javadoc
Stefano Maestri
stefano.maestri at javalinux.it
Mon Jul 14 10:03:42 EDT 2008
Hi,
I committed pom's changes to support apiviz.
I also wrote our thought to Trustin Lee (forwarding him this 3ad). I
attached here its answer, and my reply to it.
bye
S.
John P. A. Verhaeg wrote on 27/06/08 17:01:
> I have no problem adding it to the POM, I was just throwing out my
> opinion that currently it doesn't seem to add any real value, only
> visual sugar. Hopefully it will improve in the future. Have you
> already sent some feedback to Trustin concerning this?
>
> Randall Hauch wrote:
>> I still vote that we add it to the POM. I'm sure it will improve
>> over time, but the fact that it works gracefully without GraphVis
>> installed is a huge plus in my mind.
>>
>> On Jun 27, 2008, at 8:58 AM, John P. A. Verhaeg wrote:
>>
>>> I love the package dependency graph shown in the overview, but I'd
>>> have to say the issue with apiviz not showing uses of classes is
>>> important. I haven't looked at all the classes, but it looks like
>>> apiviz does nothing more than provide a view of generalizations and
>>> interface utilization, which is already apparent through the normal
>>> JavaDoc information. The class usage shown by umlGraph actually
>>> helps to understand how a class works.
>>>
>>> Stefano Maestri wrote:
>>>> It doesn't include just the "use" relationship.
>>>> Anyway to give better feedback Mr. Lee I'll put apviz in some of my
>>>> daytime job projects where my team is using umgraph since early
>>>> this year and I'll write my feedback directly to Trustin, keeping
>>>> you post.
>>>> I'll look forward for others opinion before commit my modified
>>>> pom.xml for dna.
>>>> Randall Hauch wrote on 27/06/08 01:54:
>>>>> Trustin is looking for feedback, so can you be more specific
>>>>> regarding the con? It doesn't generate any diagram automatically,
>>>>> or it doesn't include the "use" relationship automatically?
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, I'm fine with including it. Does anyone else (besides
>>>>> Stefano or me) have an opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Stefano Maestri wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oki, I played a little with it. I like it very much, for its
>>>>>> ability to switch back silently to standard doclet with graphviz
>>>>>> isn't found on building host. And I like generated graph too (in
>>>>>> particular the gray notation for class/interface out of current
>>>>>> package).
>>>>>> The only cons is apiviz doesn't generate automatically, but only
>>>>>> with an added tags, the "use" relation, umlGraph did it
>>>>>> automatically as default and it help in some situation.
>>>>>> Anyway, I'm fine to use it, and I'm ready to commit modified
>>>>>> pom.xml if the team agree.
>>>>>> I uploaded on my site apiviz results to be compared to umlgraph
>>>>>> ones (both availabel online for your evaluation):
>>>>>> http://www.javalinuxlabs.org/umlGraph/apidocs/index.html
>>>>>> http://www.javalinuxlabs.org/apiviz/apidocs/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BR
>>>>>> S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Randall Hauch wrote on 26/06/08 16:18:
>>>>>>> This is a new rewrite of the UmlGraph library, created by
>>>>>>> Trustin Lee: http://code.google.com/p/apiviz/. Stefano, would
>>>>>>> you mind taking a look and reporting back how this compares with
>>>>>>> UmlGraph? I suspect it will be added to the JBoss Maven
>>>>>>> repository relatively soon, so the repository fragment in the
>>>>>>> POM sample would not be required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Randall
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:36 AM, Stefano Maestri wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried to add UmlGraph generated images to dna project javadocs.
>>>>>>>> The result is nice:
>>>>>>>> http://www.javalinuxlabs.org/apidocs/index.html
>>>>>>>> I attached here the only modification needed to pom.xml to get
>>>>>>>> this result.
>>>>>>>> UmlGraph can also model composition relation with custom
>>>>>>>> javadocs tags, but, IMHO the totally automatic results is fine
>>>>>>>> and easy for all.
>>>>>>>> Also public method can be added to the model, but I think it's
>>>>>>>> better to have easy to read structural model and leave to
>>>>>>>> javadoc deeper descriptions of class components and methods.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only problem with UmlGraph is that it depends on GraphViz,
>>>>>>>> and this dependencies can't be administered by maven, since
>>>>>>>> graphvz isn't a java package. UmlGraph just expect GraphViz
>>>>>>>> instaed on building host and fails if it isn't. I didn't find
>>>>>>>> any elegant and brief way to solve the problem: any suggestion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW have Hudson's host GraphViz installed? Is this strong
>>>>>>>> unmanaged dependency acceptable for javadoc target?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMHO enriched javadocs is nice and could help a lot community
>>>>>>>> to understand our sw architecture/class hierarchy. At least
>>>>>>>> they helped me :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> best regards
>>>>>>>> S.
>>>>>>>> Index: pom.xml
>>>>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- pom.xml (revision 306)
>>>>>>>> +++ pom.xml (working copy)
>>>>>>>> @@ -182,6 +182,20 @@
>>>>>>>> <version>2.2</version>
>>>>>>>> <configuration>
>>>>>>>> <aggregate>true</aggregate>
>>>>>>>> + +
>>>>>>>> <doclet>gr.spinellis.umlgraph.doclet.UmlGraphDoc</doclet>
>>>>>>>> + <docletArtifact>
>>>>>>>> + <groupId>gr.spinellis</groupId>
>>>>>>>> + <artifactId>UmlGraph</artifactId>
>>>>>>>> + <version>4.6</version>
>>>>>>>> + </docletArtifact>
>>>>>>>> + <additionalparam>
>>>>>>>> + -inferrel -inferdep -quiet -hide
>>>>>>>> java.* -collpackages java.util.* -qualify
>>>>>>>> + -postfixpackage -nodefontsize 9
>>>>>>>> + -nodefontpackagesize 7
>>>>>>>> + </additionalparam>
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + </configuration>
>>>>>>>> </plugin>
>>>>>>>> </plugins>
>>>>>>>> @@ -425,6 +439,12 @@
>>>>>>>> <version>10.2.1.6</version>
>>>>>>>> <scope>test</scope>
>>>>>>>> </dependency>
>>>>>>>> + <dependency>
>>>>>>>> + <groupId>gr.spinellis</groupId>
>>>>>>>> + <artifactId>UmlGraph</artifactId>
>>>>>>>> + <version>4.8</version>
>>>>>>>> +</dependency>
>>>>>>>> + </dependencies>
>>>>>>>> </dependencyManagement>
>>>>>>>> <reporting>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> dna-dev mailing list
>>>>>>>> dna-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/dna-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dna-dev mailing list
>>>> dna-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/dna-dev
>>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> dna-dev mailing list
> dna-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/dna-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Trustin Lee" <tlee at redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [dna-dev] Adding umlgraph to our javadoc]
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:41:32 +0900
Size: 14346
Url: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/dna-dev/attachments/20080714/41a24e50/attachment.eml
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Stefano Maestri <stefano.maestri at javalinux.it>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [dna-dev] Adding umlgraph to our javadoc]
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:00:57 +0200
Size: 2603
Url: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/dna-dev/attachments/20080714/41a24e50/attachment-0001.eml
More information about the dna-dev
mailing list