In the art of computer programming, there are various tools to assist with the designing of a software program (e.g. application program). One category of such program design tools is the visual modeling type. The UML is an example visual modeling language (with formal syntax and semantics) for communicating a model or conceptionalization. The modeling language specification specifies modeling elements, notation and usage guidelines and not order of activities, specification of artifacts, repository interface, storage, run-time behavior and so forth.
In general, at the modeling level a “problem” is posed in terms of a customer's needs and requirements and may be referred to as the business problem system. The software designer develops a “solution” software product and or service that addresses the problem. The UML syntax enables software designers to express (specify and document) the subject problems and solutions in a standardized manner, while the UML semantics enable knowledge about the subject system to be captured and leveraged during the problem solving phase. See “UML in a Nutshell” by Simon Si Alhir, published by O'Reilly & Associates, September 1998. As such, the UML enables the sharing of information (including prior solution portions) and extension (without reimplementation) of core object oriented concepts (analysis and design) during the iterative problem-solving process for designing software products.
One of the problems with many visual modeling applications is that they are difficult to use. A palette often provides the possible tools that can be used to create shapes and connectors. This requires the user to constantly be going back and forth between the palette and the drawing surface. It is also difficult to provide hints as to what types of things the user should be creating (e.g., what types of connectors should go between certain shapes). The user, especially those new to UML, effectively play a guessing game as to which connections are legitimate between UML elements on the working diagram.
Existing modeling tools (i.e., ArgoUML) have some solutions for this in the form of connector handles around a shape from which new connectors can be created. The typical implementation has a set of connector handles each representing a different semantic relationship type for the user to create. The problem is that for shapes that support a lot of relationships, the border of the shape can get quite cluttered. This leads to some usability issues which ironically is what the connector handles are trying to solve. First, when the handles are invoked, this creates an “explosion” of handles around the shape which can cause the user to be inhibited by the choices available. Often the user won't understand the symbolic meaning of the handles and just know that a relationship needs to be created. The assumption is that the user has expert level domain knowledge of the relationships and what the relationships mean.
For different types of elements, the handles that are available around the shape change because different elements may support different types of relationships as a source. This means that the user interface (UI) for the handles becomes inconsistent across shapes and semantic domains. As a result the user does not gain a familiarity of the UI across all shapes and needs to learn the available handles and positions on a per shape basis.
Another issue is that typically these handles are only available for source to target relationship creation. This is assuming that the user only considers creation of relationships in this manner. If a user is thinking contextual to the target and who may consume the capabilities of this target, the user's mouse cursor is probably hovering over that shape. However, if the user now wishes to create a relationship to the target, the user must navigate his mouse/cursor to the source shape, invoke the handles and then draw the relationship. This partially defeats the purpose of the handles in that it is forcing movement of the mouse when a contributor to the relationship was literally under hand! A similar issue is if the target of the mouse cursor is on the opposite side of the source shape from the connector handle, the user is required to move the cursor across the source shape to the connector handle and drag across the source shape to the target. This feels awkward since the source shape effectively gets in the way of the gesture and forces redundant mouse/cursor movement.
The present invention provides a solution to the above issues and addresses the problems of the prior art.
Instead of many connector handles for each type of relationship, the present invention offers two handles consistently that represent “source to target” creation and “target to source” creation. These two handles (or indicators) are consistent across all shapes in a work diagram and appear to hover nearest to the mouse cursor on the shape edge. The user selects a handle and drags the selected handle to the target context (element shape or blank diagram area). On drag completion, the user is prompted to qualify the gesture (i.e., ask for specific connection type based on the target context and/or the specific target type).
In a preferred embodiment, the invention method and apparatus provide indications of a potential source-to-target connection and a potential target-to-source connection between elements in a subject software program being designed in a visual modeling system. In particular, the invention displays a source-to-target handle and a target-to-source handle. The handles are displayed together (as appropriate) through the user graphical interface in response to the cursor hovering near any one of the plurality of elements in the work diagram. Each handle enables production of an associated connection. In response to the user selecting one of the displayed handles, the invention method/apparatus provides a prompt to the user to qualify use of the selected handle (i.e., define associated connection) with respect to the one element. The prompt preferably is menu-based. In accordance with the user's specifications (e.g., menu selections), the invention method/apparatus defines a relationship with the one element and produces a pertinent connection (e.g., edges) that represents the defined relationship in the work diagram.
Some additional functionality in other embodiments include:
The foregoing and other objects, features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following more particular description of preferred embodiments of the invention, as illustrated in the accompanying drawings in which like reference characters refer to the same parts throughout the different views. The drawings are not necessarily to scale, emphasis instead being placed upon illustrating the principles of the invention.
Illustrated in
More formally, a relationship is a connection between model elements. A UML relationship is a type of model element that adds semantics to models. A user can add and modify relationships in models to identify the semantic ties between model elements 17.
In a modeling application, a user drags and drops visual modeling (UML) elements from a palette to a working diagram. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, two connector handles 13, 15 appear when a user hovers over a shape in a working diagram 11.
The user creates a new relationship between a source element 17 and target element 19 by selecting the outgoing connector handle 13 on the source shape 17 and dragging the selected connector handle 13 to the target shape 19 as shown in
In a like manner by selecting the incoming connector handle 15 of
Continuing with
As illustrated in
Once a relationship is created between elements in a working diagram 11, the present invention enables a user to expand the related elements. In a preferred embodiment, the user expands related elements by double-clicking a connector handle 13, 15 and qualifying the relationship type through a displayed dialogue box 25.
Client computer(s)/devices 50 and server computer(s) 60 provide processing, storage, and input/output devices executing application programs and the like. Client computer(s)/devices 50 can also be linked through communications network 70 to other computing devices, including other client devices/processes 50 and server computer(s) 60. Communications network 70 can be part of a remote access network, a global network (e.g., the Internet), a worldwide collection of computers, Local area or Wide area networks, and gateways that currently use respective protocols (TCP/IP, Bluetooth, etc.) to communicate with one another. Other electronic device/computer network architectures are suitable.
The invention can take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment or an embodiment containing both hardware and software elements. In a preferred embodiment, the invention is implemented in software, which includes but is not limited to firmware, resident software, microcode, etc.
Furthermore, the invention can take the form of a computer program product accessible from a computer-usable or computer-readable medium providing program code for use by or in connection with a computer or any instruction execution system. For the purposes of this description, a computer-usable or computer readable medium can be any apparatus that can contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
The medium can be an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system (or apparatus or device) or a propagation medium. Examples of a computer-readable medium include a semiconductor or solid state memory, magnetic tape, a removable computer diskette, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a rigid magnetic disk and an optical disk. Current examples of optical disks include compact disk-read only memory (CD-ROM), compact disk-read/write (CD-R/W) and DVD.
A data processing system suitable for storing and/or executing program code will include at least one processor coupled directly or indirectly to memory elements through a system bus. The memory elements can include local memory employed during actual execution of the program code, bulk storage, and cache memories which provide temporary storage of at least some program code in order to reduce the number of times code must be retrieved from bulk storage during execution.
Input/output or I/O devices (including but not limited to keyboards, displays, pointing devices, etc.) can be coupled to the system either directly or through intervening I/O controllers.
Network adapters may also be coupled to the system to enable the data processing system to become coupled to other data processing systems or remote printers or storage devices through intervening private or public networks. Modems, cable modem and Ethernet cards are just a few of the currently available types of network adapters.
With reference to
In step 47, invention routine 10 detects target element 19 and displays menu 21. If the target element is unspecified, then step 48 displays the menu series 23a, 23b to prompt the user to specify a target as previously discussed in
In step 51, invention routine 10 detects the user selecting through an input device (such as double clicking on a mouse) a connector handle 13, 15 of existing related elements displayed in working diagram 11. In response, step 53 displays a dialog box 25 as described in
While this invention has been particularly shown and described with references to preferred embodiments thereof, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes in form and details may be made therein without departing from the scope of the invention encompassed by the appended claims.
For example, the present invention may be employed by or included in the user interface of a variety of modeling application such as Argo UML and others. The basic portions of the user interface (outside of the present invention portion) are believed to be in the purview of those skilled in the art.
Further the computer architecture of
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5630080 | Malamud et al. | May 1997 | A |
5742848 | Burgess | Apr 1998 | A |
5835758 | Nochur et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838973 | Carpenter-Smith et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5872973 | Mitchell et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
6272672 | Conway | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6366300 | Ohara et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6405364 | Bowman-Amuah | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6467081 | Vaidyanathan et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6701513 | Bailey | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6701517 | Moore et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6742175 | Brassard | May 2004 | B1 |
6823495 | Vedula et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6836275 | Arquie et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6986120 | Reddy et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7017123 | Chickles et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7240328 | Beckett et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7370315 | Lovell et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7464366 | Shukla et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7490314 | Yuknewicz et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7496886 | Puttaswamy et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7890868 | Shah et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
20020080157 | Chickles et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020145629 | Gabbert et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20040032429 | Shah et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040085367 | Hagarty, Jr. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040243931 | Stevens et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040252119 | Hunleth et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050132326 | Chischportich et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20070101321 | Mahoney et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20080270977 | Nucci et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20100050152 | Gilboa | Feb 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1 365 320 | Nov 2003 | EP |
Entry |
---|
Ákos Lédeczi et al., “Composing Domain-Specific Design Environments”, [Online], IEEE 2001, pp. 44-51, [Retrieved from Internet on Sep. 16, 2012], <http://repository.escherinstitute.org/Plone/tools/suites/mic/gme/2001Composing DomainSpecificDesignEnvironments.pdf>. |
L. Davis, et al., “The Impact of Component Architectures on Interoperability” [Online], 2002, pp. 1-25, [Retrieved from Internet on Sep. 16, 2012], <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.108.9659&rep=rep1&type=pdf>. |
Karl Johan Åström et al., “Evolution of Continuous-Time Modeling and Simulation” [Online], Jun. 1998, pp. 1-10, [Retrieved from Internet on Sep. 16, 2012], <https://www.modelica.org/publications/index—html/papers/esm98his.pdf>. |
H.J. Burckhart et al., “Connection DCS DAQ in ATLAS” [Online], Nov. 1999, pp. 1-5, [Retrieved from Internet on Sep. 16, 2012], <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.184.3254&rep=rep1&type=pdf>. |
“Drag-Drop Technique for Connecting Source and Target Objects in an Application Builder Environment,” IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin 36(08):365-366, Aug. 1993. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20070101321 A1 | May 2007 | US |