Base side seems to make sense, not sure what advantage there is in allowing the
labels free placement.

Subject: Re: [Uml-devel]  Sequence diagram: label placement

Jonathan Riddell <jr@jriddell.org> [040119 18:40]:
> Base side seems to make sense, not sure what advantage there is in
> allowing the labels free placement.

What does base side mean?

Steinchen

I don't know if it makes sense but it ment the side of the arrow with the class
that has the method which is being called.  At the moment is appears next to
the calling class.

Not sure which is best, it may not matter.

Subject: Re: [Uml-devel]  Sequence diagram: label placement

Jonathan Riddell <jr@jriddell.org> [040204 14:54]:
> I don't know if it makes sense but it ment the side of the arrow with the
> class that has the method which is being called.  At the moment is appears
> next to the calling class.
> 
> Not sure which is best, it may not matter.

So can we close the report or change it to a wish (free label placement)? Or
should we just move it to the other side?

Steinchen

OK, closing.  I think the choice is arbitrary which end you put them at and I
can't see any reason for free placement, the labels are supposed to be attached
to the arrows.

Nobody proposed that the labels be disattached from the arrows.
Nor did anybody propose free placement.

The question is, where is the label to be placed along the arrow. This leaves at
least one degree of freedom along the line of the arrow, and a choice between one of the two sides of the line.

As it is, the automatic placement often results in ugly or confusing diagrams.

It is possible to construct diagrams that work around this problem.  But it's a bad
policy to take, expecting users to work around interface glitches.

*** Bug has been marked as fixed ***.

Labels on asynchronous messages can now be moved along the horizontal fine, on
synchronous messages they just back to the start of the message as soon as you
move the message itself.

> [...] on synchronous messages they just back to the start of the message
> as soon as you move the message itself.

What do you suggest then be the proper behaviour?

> What do you suggest then be the proper behaviour? 

As with asynchronous messages the labels should keep their horizontal position when the message is being moved up or down.

> [...] the labels should keep their horizontal position when the message
> is being moved up or down. 

If nobody objects then I'll implement it such that it is not possible to
change the horizontal position of the text on messages to self (i.e. restore
the behaviour as before the mod.)

> [...] it is not possible to change the horizontal position of the
> text on messages to self 

Since nobody objected I implemented it as aforementioned.

On aynchronous operations you can move the label left and right, but you can
not move it at all on synchronous operations.

On messages to self with asynchronous operations the text jumps around the
screen when moving, with synchronous operations it can not be moved except with
the operation (which is probably best).

Are you maybe confusing synchonous/asynchonous with messages to self/messages
to another object Oliver?

Bummer. I has this fixed and now it's broken again :(

Following reoccurrences are fixed by this checkin:
1. movability of message text of sequence message pointing left
2. movability of newly created message text

CVS commit by okellogg: 

Fix reoccurrences of bug 57875.
MessageWidget::{drawSolidArrowhead,drawArrow}: New methods facilitate
understanding the drawing code.


  M +71 -54    messagewidget.cpp   1.69
  M +15 -0     messagewidget.h   1.33