Messages

1

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Objects whose type is array-of-something

« on: January 31, 2007, 10:30:34 pm »

EA/UML Newbie here.

I am not interested in code generation.

I am interested purely in the meaning of "Return Array" check-box in the Operations properties for a class/interface.

Question: Does checking this check-box mean that the actual return type is some sort of collection of the type specified in field "Return Type"?

Concern:
When I check this check-box, the class/interface diagram shows what appears to be Array notation rather than the multiplicity thing that I would really like.

Concern:
In UML, there appears to be no properties notation for the return type when modeling an operation (whereas the operation allows properties notation for the parameters and the operation itself). Why do I yearn for properties notation on the return type? I would like to use order and unique to say something about the collection being returned.

Thanks in advance to any who have made it this far.

Sincerely,
Jon Savell

2

General Board / Re: "Return Array" check-box

« on: February 02, 2007, 01:19:25 pm »

Given what I have read on the board, "Return Array" is definitely something I'd like to avoid.

Paolo suggests that I return a suitably configured collection class instance.

I also like Jim's suggestion of "Returns multiplicity" functionality.

I am trying to do my homework, but I would appreciate it if someone could help me get started on either of these approaches (even if it's a pointer to documentation).

Although I am currently importing Java specific types via packages, I would love to eventually use UML types exclusively.

Thank you all.

Sincerely,
Jon Savell

3

General Board / "Return Array" check-box

« on: February 01, 2007, 06:07:14 pm »

EA/UML Newbie here.

I would like to know how to model a collection as the return type of an operation.

I am curious about the meaning of "Return Array" check-box in the Operations properties for a class/interface.

Question: Does checking this check-box mean that the actual return type is some sort of collection of the type specified in field "Return Type"?

Concern:
When I check this check-box, the class diagram shows what appears to be Array notation rather than the multiplicity thing that I would really like.

Thanks in advance to any who have made it this far.

Sincerely,
Jon Savell

4

General Board / Re: Add type to class attribute

« on: January 31, 2007, 08:43:28 pm »

Simon,

I am grateful for a quick response. That is a very important part of a successful forum. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jon Savell

5

General Board / Re: Add type to class attribute

« on: January 31, 2007, 06:41:31 pm »

UML newbie here. I want String.

I wanted to use pure UML types (avoiding platform types), but my choice is then limited to UnlimitedNatural, Boolean, Integer and String. Is this true?

If I decide to use platform types for the Java language, then it looks like I am restricted to the primitives (which won't give me String since it's not primitive).

On the other hand, I was able to create the java.lang package in EA and then import the associated source code (which gave me ALL java types!), but that seemed to be too much. Is there a way to selectively add platform types to the project (without manually creating these types in the Class diagram)?

Thanks in advance to anyone who made it this far.

Sincerely,
jonnie savell

6

Uml Process / Re: Assembly link versus interface dependency

« on: March 14, 2007, 04:53:22 pm »

Sargasso,

I want to begin with a quote from Paolo:

if you DO name the assembly connector then it is the name of (both) the interface(s).

I would like to propose this as an axiom (because I agree with it).

I don't have an idea about drill down, but I would like to propose that the Link Name of the assembly to draw from (via a dropdown) the list of interfaces which are REQUIRED by one component and PROVIDED by the other.

Is this reasonable?

Sincerely,
Jon Savell