On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:10:50 +0900, gabriele renzi
<rff_rff / remove-yahoo.it> wrote:
> Nicholas Van Weerdenburg ha scritto:
> > On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:35:50 +0900, Assaph Mehr <assaph / gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Not quite what you're looking for, but you can take a look at
> >>ObjectGraph (objectgraph.rubyforge.org) at how to dymanically evaluate
> >>classes and generate a png graph using GraphViz. You can set some
> >>graphviz options to make the output *look* a bit more UMLish, but it's
> >>not proper UML.
> >>
> >>I am not aware of any tool that reads ruby to generate UML (and would
> >>love to hear if there are!). You might have to follow the same process
> >>as ObjectGraph, but generating an XMI document to load into an existing
> >>tool.
> >>
> >>There is just one more question that need to be asked: are you sure
> >>that is what you need? I find that because of ruby compactness of code
> >>and duck-typing arguments you rarely use much of inheritance etc. As
> >>for activity diagrams, you can not normally get them from static code
> >>analysis so you'd have to do them by hand anyway.
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Assaph
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I might be happy with objectgraph. I like UML, but hate UML tools. So,
> > I figure I could write Ruby and use a tool to visualize the code for
> > insight and creating documentation.
> >
> > I'd also find it interesting to apply it to existing Ruby libraries to
> > get a sense of their structure.
> 
> metoo!
> 
> > Whether it is really useful, I won't know until I try :).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> 
> 
> just a thing: there is rdoc --diagram that may help. Very little, but
> better than  nothing :)
> 
> 

I didn't even know there was such a thing. I'll check it out.

Thanks,
Nick
-- 
Nicholas Van Weerdenburg