| Re: [mdt-uml2.dev] About StateInvariant implementation |
State and StateInvariant are not shown into the same diagram, I put them together to demonstrate my goal.
I would be pleased to re-use all my states into sequence diagrams without having to duplicate a ton of useless wrapper objects, definitely Copy-paste/Duplication is not an option for me.
I’m ok with the norm, my question concerns the implementation, more precisely the value of containment property for State.stateInvariant and especially StateInvariant.invariant.
Best Regards
Sébastien
State and StateInvariant are not shown into the same diagram, I put them together to demonstrate my goal.
I would be pleased to re-use all my state into my sequence diagrams without having to duplicate a ton of useless wrapper objects.
And definitely Copy-paste/Duplication is not an option for me.
I’m ok with the norm, my question concerns the implementation, more precisely the value of containment property for State.stateInvariant and especially StateInvariant.invariant.
Best Regards
Sébastien
From: mdt-uml2.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-uml2.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Willink
Sent: lundi 27 octobre 2014 17:19
To: mdt-uml2.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [mdt-uml2.dev] About StateInvariant implementation
Hi
I think you are misreading the UML. There is no requirement that the State is 'shared' it is just a draughting convenience to re-use the State box on the diagram.
In general UML does not use sharing of anything. If you want to repeat Constraint content, you must repeat it, at least until you can invoke a re-useable Operation / query. If you're clever you might do something horrible with multiple inheritance or a stereotype.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 27/10/2014 16:25, Sebastien Bordes wrote:Hi,
I’m currently working on Sequence Diagrams and StateMachine Diagrams.
We want to allow to reference a StateMachine’s State into a Sequence Diagram as a StateInvariant that covers a Lifeline.
According to the UML snippet below:
(describing relations between State, StateInvariant and Constraint)
As we can see we can use the Constraint object as a link between both world (Interaction and StateMachine).
Unfortunately the uml2 implementation is done exactly at the inverse I would have expected.
The State’s stateInvariant property has a containment set to false with a cardinality of 0..1
The StateInvariant’s invariant property has a containment set to true with a cardinality of 1
By default the StateInvariant will own an automatically built Constraint.
Whereas the State can have 1 or zero reference of Constraint.
What can I do to share a State stateInvariant on several Lifeline using several StateInvariant invariant ? IMHO the constraint should be owned by the State itself and reuse on any Lifeline by wrapping it with a StateInvariant.
If the containment properties are reversed, I will be able to attach a Constraint to my State and to reference it from several StateInvariant
Is-it a weakness into the implementation ? otherwise how can I link these items simply (without having to use free text)
(I’m using a Luna M6 derived version)
Thank you in advance for your help
Sébastien BORDES
_______________________________________________mdt-uml2.dev mailing listmdt-uml2.dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visithttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-uml2.dev
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8461 - Release Date: 10/27/14