Packages layout
With respect to packages, instead of
package a.b.c.d {
package a.b.c.d.e {
package a.b.c.d.e.f {
class C
}
}
}
shouldn’t it be better to have
package a.b.c.d {
package e {
package f {
class C
}
}
}
Not sure, though.
Comments (9)
-
reporter -
reporter Having thse classes:
a.b.c.d.A
,a.b.c.d.e.f.C
,a.b.c.d.e.f.D
a probably nicer representation could be@startuml package a.b.c.d { class A package e.f { class C class D } } @enduml
that has a simpler and cleaner representation.
-
repo owner - changed status to open
-
repo owner - changed status to resolved
will be delivered in next version
-
reporter It works better on version 0.06.00. I’ll anyway add a further optimization. Something like:
namespace a.b.c.d.e {
namespace f {
namespace g {
class A {
}
}
}
}
namespace a.b.c.d.e {
namespace f {
namespace g {
class B {
}
}
}
}
should better be rendered as
namespace a.b.c.d.e {
namespace f {
namespace g {
class A {
}
class B {
}
}
}
}
to save some space and have a (possibly) clearer view.
(I’m boring, I know)
-
repo owner - changed status to closed
-
repo owner Hello Marco,
you are right, the layout you propose would be clearer.
Unfortunately, generating such a layout would complexity my code (and potentially would add new bugs) but would not bring any value to the displayed diagram.
So I prefer to keep it like it is… at least for the moment
Best regards
Philippe
-
Hi, with your solution, the diagram doesn’t show class A:
the correct way is to include all classes in the sames namespace like this:
i think you need to reopen this issue
-
I’m having the same issue as Andy, can someone review this please? Is there any work around?
Thank you!
- Log in to comment
Also, considering the normal working mode of Sketch It!, probably having only one “package” containing all things inside that package whould be better, instead of repeating the packaging for each class. And, probably, classes that are not part of this package but are referred in the diagram, should have their own package highlighted as well… not sure, though.