Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Harbottle

Pages: [1]
1
Suggestions and Requests / Rotating Labels on Communication Diagrams
« on: October 25, 2006, 06:07:51 am »
Hi,
I notice that on sequence diagarams you can rotate the labels (Pretty pointless) using the "Label" context menu. However, on Communication Diagrams, you can't rotate the names of messages. Is there a way of doing this? It would be very useful.

2
Suggestions and Requests / Re: <<decisionInput>>
« on: September 27, 2006, 08:23:32 am »
Quote
Superstructure actually defines «decisionInput»
to be rendered as a Note.  You can make a "feature Linked" note to a constraint of type decisionInput.  The problem you have is that EA doesn't allow the stereotyping of Notes via the UI, but you can do it via the database directly.

Creating such a note and setting the stereotype will get the rendering Bary created (except that the «decisionInput» will be a true stereotype).

HTH,
Paolo


Thanks, I did this and it works.

3
Suggestions and Requests / <<decisionInput>>
« on: September 27, 2006, 06:46:32 am »
Does EA support <<decisionInput>> on decisions? I can't seem to find it, and am loathe to attempt to use "Notes" and bodge it.  I'd like to be able to link an existing action to a decision.

I can't work out how to create a "grouping" of input parameters on an activity in order to implement an "Or" relationship...


4
Uml Process / Re: Structured Activity Nodes
« on: October 19, 2006, 07:20:38 am »
Quote
I'm not sure I understand the problem here.  Whenever the UML Specification is silent, we are free to do what we wish;  there is no "should be" to worry about--other than to be clear enough in our communications that our readers understand our intent.  Here is how I approach the issue:

In traditional Structured Programming there are three logic patterns:  Simple Sequence, Selection, and Repetition (aka; Loopnode, having two forms:  doUntil and doWhile).  The traditional flowchart notation for these patterns are well known, but I can provide examples if you like.  All of these can be modeled by an activity diagram that emphasizes control flow.  The mantra is One way in, one way out of these logic patterns.

In traditional structured programming, the three basic logic patterns may be nested in any combination to build up complex logic flows.  The UML allows an equivalent nesting of structured activities.

EA provides a structured activity element with a stereotype and composite icon for your use.  In a diagram, clicking on this element opens a subordinate diagram page where the structured logic may be denoted as the above mentioned activity control flow.  The added power provided by the UML is that Action Pins and Object Nodes may be used to enrich the value of the diagram by denoting information flows as well as control flows.  (It goes without saying that the control flow logic of the subordinate diagram should be consistent with the stereotype of the parent.)

IMO:  Bock makes the point that one may use this approach to activity diagramming, or, if it makes communication more effective, a textual form of notation may be used instead.  This is similar to the use of a textual form for Use Cases as that may more effectivly communicate some concepts than a Use Case Diagram's notation.

Does this help?


Um, I didn't want a lecture on programming (I do have a PhD in a Software Engineering based subject and have been working with UML for 10 years in industry!). I fully understand the structures of these constructs. I was simply wondering if the structured notation could be used to avoid having to replicate the same pattern by being interpreted as a well understood structure with only the relevent activities specified. (In fact, my questions is similar to the question and point of the paper I quoted.)

Trying to communicate "custom" defined UML to colleagues - say in Japan - is a pointless excercise if they don't understand the meaning of the diagram or stereotypes.



5
Uml Process / Re: Structured Activity Nodes
« on: October 12, 2006, 07:58:13 am »
Quote
Seems clear to me.  :)
Have you read Bock on Structured Activities?


Yes thankyou, I have read that, and many more papers on the subject. That particular paper is rather  poorly written (And appears to be missing some diagrams.) It does not - like most UML papers - offer any sort of decent example on how to use the notation. At least it refrains from "Sales Orders" examples.

This paper is a lot better, but also has the same question: exactly how should something like, say, a LoopNode, be notated.

"Semantics of structured Nodes in UML 2.0 Activities." by Harald Storrle, Ludwig-Maxumilians-Universitat Munchen.



6
Uml Process / Structured Activity Nodes
« on: October 06, 2006, 07:47:43 am »
Would I be correcting in saying that the concept of "structured activity nodes" is unclear? It seems to me that the whole point is avoid the mess of spaghetti by allowing creation of a structured action where the implication is that there are activities and variables linked in a certain way (i.e. Loopnode)

The spec is very unclear on this.

Also in EA, how do you link parameters on the activity to the sub diagram?


7
Uml Process / Action - Constant Inputs
« on: October 05, 2006, 06:42:42 am »
Is it valid to show a "constant" input to an action (such WriteStructuralFeature) as a "ActionPin" with no arrow pointing it.

For example, I have an action that writes "0" to a structural feature as the result of a branch of a control flow. I am showing this as a WriteStructuralFeature action, with the input pin unconnected, but with "0" attached to it.

Pages: [1]