UML syntax: Nested namespaces

[ronaldtse]

Namespace

• A namespace is a named element that can contain named elements.
• Within a namespace, named elements are uniquely identified by their names.
• In addition, they have a qualified name, resulting from nested namespaces.
• The qualified name of a named element can be derived from the nesting of the enclosing namespaces.

Namespaces Def.-A named element is an element that can have a name and a defined visibility (public, private, protected, package):

• + => public
• • => private
• # => protected
• ~ => package The name of the element and its visibility are optional.

Proposal

package Customers {
  package "Corporate customers" {
    class Insurance
  }
}

and/or (auto-define packages)

class Customers::"Corporate customers":Insurance

and/or (explicit definition of packages)

package Customers
package Customers::"Corporate customers"
class Customers::"Corporate customers":Insurance

[w00lf]

@ronaldtse first version looks like the right way to do it:

package Customers {
  package "Corporate customers" {
    class Insurance {}
  }
}

Visibility modifiers can be set by -, + or #:

package Customers {
  class Insurance {}
  - class PrivateInsurance {}
  # class ProtectedInsurance {}
}

class Insurance {}
class PrivateInsurance {}

package Customers {
   Insurance
   - PrivateInsurance
}

[ronaldtse]

Your examples look fine. We also need to take care of the case where the Package is defined outside of the current file (oh, we should support multiple files via include...)? Or not?

[w00lf]

Your examples look fine. We also need to take care of the case where the Package is defined outside of the current file (oh, we should support multiple files via include...)? Or not?

I think in that case we better to introduce import file possibility. It can look this way:

#! import path/to/file

[ronaldtse]

Good idea.

What syntax should we use for the syntax?

How about just:

include my_package.llu

class MyPackage::This {}

?

[w00lf]

Good idea.

What syntax should we use for the syntax?

How about just:

include my_package.llu

class MyPackage::This {}

?

I`d rather use hashbang, because its not display option and is type of a special command. This is an example how plantuml handles this:

@startuml

!import /path/to/customLibrary.zip
' This just adds "customLibrary.zip" in the search path

!include myFolder/myFile.iuml
' Assuming that myFolder/myFile.iuml is located somewhere
' either inside "customLibrary.zip" or on the local filesystem

[ronaldtse]

But hashbang is very shell-like.

I think we should:

• "include" a file or files under a directory
• "import" a package

?

Can we use just include for now without the ! and only change when we need to?

[w00lf]

But hashbang is very shell-like.

I think we should:

• "include" a file or files under a directory
• "import" a package

?

Can we use just include for now without the ! and only change when we need to?

Sure, we can, lets use notations without hashbang.

[ronaldtse]

Cool, thanks!