Version 13 Qualification Relation Needs Work

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The new qualification relation is so messed up that it is almost unusable. See 
the attached image for a comparison with what it used to do.

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Use a qualification relation

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Expected:
1. Text in the qualification follows the document style.
2. Qualification box butts up against the class.
3. Relationship multiplicities are visible.

Instead:
1. Text in the qualification box is larger than the document's default size.
2. Qualification box is centered on the end of the line and overlaps the class, 
obscuring information.
3. Relationship multiplicities are obscured by the qualification box.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
UMLet Version 13.1
OS: Windows 8.1

Please provide any additional information below.
Fortunately, I can still use the old qualification relationship. It just seems 
like it is a little clunkier now under v13.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by cjgid...@gmail.com on 5 Jan 2015 at 8:18

Attachments:

• QualificationRelation.JPG

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for he report

The first described issue is the placement of r1, r2, m1, m2 which needs a 
simple fix

The second issue of overlapping or non-overlapping boxes is a bit more complex 
and comes from the difference between
UML Qualifiers: http://www.uml-diagrams.org/property.html#qualifier
UML Ports: http://www.uml-diagrams.org/composite-structure-diagrams.html#port
UML Pins: http://www.uml-diagrams.org/activity-diagrams-objects.html#pin

While pins and qualifiers should not overlap, ports should overlap

We need to find a simple syntax for relations which should cover both use cases.

For documentation purposes:
The old relation used e.g. "<[text][]> for ports with or without text, but 
q1/q2 for qualifiers.

Original comment by AFDiaX on 6 Jan 2015 at 3:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

A possible fix could be:

Change the display of [text] and [] to "qualifier style" (as suggested by the 
author of the issue) and create a specific endpoint-notation for ports

As ports typically have no content, the "[ ]" could be used for ports (a 
qualifier or pin with only a space as content is not useful

Original comment by AFDiaX on 6 Jan 2015 at 3:24