Subsystems, components, packages...

[dhensley75287]

I'm just starting to evaluate EA for possible use on the requirements and architectural phase of a project. I'm trying to do an iterative decomposition of the system, as per Douglass' book (Real Time UML) or the approach being taken with SysML.
Both Douglass and SysML use components as  subsystems, while the EA example uses packages. No subsystem stereotype exists for components. My imperfect understanding is that a component-based subsystem implies the semantics that the component owns the interfaces between subcomponents, and is responsible for creating subcomponents, etc., while the package-based subsystem has no true architectural semantics.

Because of the disconnect between the EA example and implementation and the other references, I'm concerned that I'm missing something important.

Comments or advice greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Dave Hensley

[mikewhit]

Off the cuff, you could use a Package 1-to-1 for each subsystem, and have each subsystem Component <<realise>> a subsystem Package.

I will look in Douglass etc for any better thoughts.

You can just add new stereotypes as you wish anyhow.

Search the Forum for suggestions about splitting the Views, an example is here: http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=general;action=display;num=1033756093

[dhensley75287]

Thanks Mike. Yeah, I'm just using stereotyping for now. I found a reference in the Zicom mentor saying that there was a semantic change in subsystems between UML 1 and 2, and that in 1 they were a combination of a package and a component.

Cheers,

Dave