Support of "all" PlantUML elements can be enabled about c4-plantuml HOT 4 CLOSED

Flattered to be asked. For me, the plant=... is acceptable. to be more agnostic in naming, you could use renderAs or something like it?

from c4-plantuml.

I am in favor, with one point of concern: I would prefer a different term than plant. However, I do not have a suggestion yet.¹

Other than that, I think you are correct that we should provide the "customer" (user of the lib) with what they want. I think the ENABLE_* flag is a fair compromise.²

from c4-plantuml.

I don't like plant too, but I didn't want to use 'planetUML....' we have basically no UML context.
I could call it baseShape?

I know, the better solution would be if we combine $shape, but
a) $shape is part of tags (atm we have ComponentDb() and this means "database" is part of the "Component()" definition without any tags)
b) and if would combine $shape with $plant and make it as part of the "Component(...,$shape)" then the internal logic==filesize/performance would be increased independent whether the feature is enabled or not

@Potherca: what do you think? (should I combine it and add it to the elements)

from c4-plantuml.

I wouldn't bother combining $shape, either renderAs or baseShape sound like good alternatives to me. 👍

from c4-plantuml.