[kforge-dev] plugin system overview

Sun Nov 13 19:44:33 UTC 2005

John Bywater wrote:
> Rufus -
> 
> Could you send me the source for this diagram?

The source /is/ the digram (since ascii uml). Subversion copy is here:

http://scm.kforge.net/svn/kforge/trunk/docs/kforge_plugin_system.txt

You can use jave to edit them.

> I wanted to adjust it to:
> 
> (a) clarify that the vertical dimension of concern is the n-tier 
> architecture: roughly: presentation, command, domain, persistence
> 
> (b) clarify that the horizontal dimension of concern is roughly: left to 
> right: KForge "core" packages, adjacent to this is the KForge core 
> system extension mechanism ("the plugin system") package, and then 
> adjacent to the plugin system are the concrete extensions.

You might want to check out the overview diagram which has a higher 
level of abstraction. The plugin diagram was more focused on plugins.

http://scm.kforge.net/svn/kforge/trunk/docs/kforge_system_overview.txt

> So, in short, it makes more sense for the "Zz" entities to be to the 
> right of the plugin entities. The label "DOMAIN OBJECTS" should be to 
> the left of the diagram, and in its place it would be better to have 
> "KFORGE CORE".
> 
> I probably wouldn't indicate persistence on a diagram of the plugin 
> system. I would probably either create separate diagrams to indicate how 
> domain objects are persisted.

Yes, good point. Originally i didn't have it in but then I added it so 
as to indicate the reason that we need plugins to be able to insert back 
into the domain (because they need persistence and to relate to other 
domain objects). Plugins on their own have no access to the kforge 
persistence mechanism.

> I do think there is value in creating some nice UML diagrams for this, 
> not least to encourage more serious developers to the project. Perhaps 
> I'll give ArgoUML another spin. I think the pain of its destroying my 
> diagrams a few years ago has worn off. Mostly. But perhaps the best 
> thing is to stay with these ASCII diagrams. I think they are adequate 
> for communication purposes. However, pucker UML would have a certain 
> flashness.

I have to say I think for the time being it is good to stick with ascii 
uml particularly as you can insert in email (though watch out for the 72 
character limitation)

> Could you send me the source? Or perhaps put it in the repository? I bet 
> you already have. ;-)
> 
> If so, could you let me know where? And what I use to edit it with?

See above.

Regards,

Rufus