Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] First shot at impact analyzer doc

[Axel Uhl <eclipse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ed,

please note that in the spec the rectangles are not around the 
interfaces but around the classes implementing the interfaces. The way I 
read the spec it allows for either using rectangle+stereotype in 
guillmets or lollipop (no stereotpye required as implied by lollipop). 
If lollipop is chosen, at least in previous versions of the UML spec it 
was possible to draw the compartments below the lollipop with the lines 
that confused you as separators.

Since I don't really care, I'll change it.

-- Axel

On 2/24/2011 7:01 AM, Ed Willink wrote:
> Hi Axel
>
> Yes when I scanned UML Super 2.3 I found the lollipop for an interface,
> but it clearly shows a rectangle too.
>
> 7.3.24 Notation
>
> /As a classifier, an interface may be shown using a rectangle symbol
> with the keyword «interface» preceding the name.
>
> The interface realization dependency from a classifier to an interface
> is shown by representing the interface by a circle or
> ball, labeled with the name of the interface, attached by a solid line
> to the classifier that realizes this interface (see Figure
> 7.55).
>
> The usage dependency from a classifier to an interface is shown by
> representing the interface by a half-circle or socket,
> labeled with the name of the interface, attached by a solid line to the
> classifier that requires this interface (see Figure
> 7.56)./
>
> In all cases, there should be a surrounding rectangle for the name (and
> compartments). Your diagrams omit this which is why I'm so confused.
>
> IMHO the ball and socket notation can be useful when showing components
> plugging together. The <<interface>> notation is helpful when adding
> detail to a class diagram, which is I think what you are trying to draw.
>
> Regards
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> On 23/02/2011 21:24, Axel Uhl wrote:
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > thanks for clarifying. Lollipops represent classes with stereotype
> > <<Interface>> which is standard UML notation since at least 1.3.
> > Compartment separators are drawn below, for property and operation
> > compartments which is also part of the standard since 1.3 AFAIK.
> >
> > Would you think the diagram's readability will improve if I remove one
> > of those two lines by telling Rose not to display the
> > property/attribute compartment? It'll still show the line separating
> > the operations compartment from the lollipop, though, which again is
> > standard.
> >
> > Best,
> > -- Axel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
> mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev