Is Actor a stereotype in UML 2.0?

[wings]

Hi,everyone,

Actor is explaned as a stereotype in most UML books. But in UML 2.0 specification, Actor is derived from BehavioredClassifier (from BasicBehaviors, Communications), not exist as an instance of stereotype. Is it a revising?

wings

[Geert Bellekens]

If a book really says actor is a stereotype then it is plain wrong.
Actor is an element just like class, interface, Action, etc..

But: an actor can be displayed in the standard rectangular shape. (like a class). In that case the box will have the "actor" keyword to indicate that it is an actor.
The notation for keywords is exactly the same as the notation for stereotypes, so from the looks of it you cannot distinguish a class with stereotype actor and an actor show in the rectangular style.

Geert

[Paolo F Cantoni]

[size=18]...[/size]
The notation for keywords is exactly the same as the notation for stereotypes, so from the looks of it you cannot distinguish a class with stereotype actor and an actor show in the rectangular style.

Geert

One of OMG brighter ideas - NOT!

Paolo

[son-of-sargasso]

Oh my Dog!  I had to try it myself.  I'm going to have to bang my head against a bar counter all weekend now just to get over it.

bruce




(actually I'm going fishing, so I'll just have to make do with slapping myself in the face with a bream or something  ) avagoodone!!!

[wings]

I see. Thanx for all of you.