Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » UML2 » Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour
Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour [message #477046] Mon, 10 March 2008 14:13 Go to next message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix Dorner
Messages: 675
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hey,

I am designing a small Action Language that can be used to specify the
behaviour of the operations in a class model. I am looking for good ways
to link the textual specification of an operation to the operation in
the model.

After some reading, I think the preferred way to do this, is to create
an OpaqueBehaviour for every operation I'd like to specify in my language.

One thing is however disturbing: Every Parameter of the Operation must
be created twice. One owned by the Operation, and the other owned by the
OpaqueBehaviour.

I don't see the point in that. Could't this association be "derived", or
even completely ommited from the metamodel, or are there any reasons why
there is the need for this data to be specified with such a redundancy?

Felix
Re: Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour [message #477049 is a reply to message #477046] Mon, 10 March 2008 17:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kenn Hussey is currently offline Kenn Hussey
Messages: 1618
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Felix,

Redundancy related to behavioral specifications (operations) and their
behaviors (methods) is actually the subject of recent debate within the UML
community (i.e. the UML 2.2 RTF). I believe this duplication exists to
foster decoupling of a behavior's implementation from its declaration; note
that the signatures could ini fact be different (although the method must
conform to the specification), e.g., the parameter names (but not their
types!) could be different...

Kenn

"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fr3to5$e6c$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hey,
>
> I am designing a small Action Language that can be used to specify the
> behaviour of the operations in a class model. I am looking for good ways
> to link the textual specification of an operation to the operation in the
> model.
>
> After some reading, I think the preferred way to do this, is to create an
> OpaqueBehaviour for every operation I'd like to specify in my language.
>
> One thing is however disturbing: Every Parameter of the Operation must be
> created twice. One owned by the Operation, and the other owned by the
> OpaqueBehaviour.
>
> I don't see the point in that. Could't this association be "derived", or
> even completely ommited from the metamodel, or are there any reasons why
> there is the need for this data to be specified with such a redundancy?
>
> Felix
>
>
>
Re: Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour [message #477050 is a reply to message #477049] Mon, 10 March 2008 18:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix Dorner
Messages: 675
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Kenn Hussey wrote:
> Felix,
>
> Redundancy related to behavioral specifications (operations) and their
> behaviors (methods) is actually the subject of recent debate within the UML
> community (i.e. the UML 2.2 RTF). I believe this duplication exists to
> foster decoupling of a behavior's implementation from its declaration; note
> that the signatures could ini fact be different (although the method must
> conform to the specification), e.g., the parameter names (but not their
> types!) could be different...

Thanks Kenn! It´s vital that an insider like you has an eye on this
group. I am now looking for the debate :-p. Where "is" the UML community
that discusses things like these? I hope its not just the vendors...

Felix
Re: Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour [message #477053 is a reply to message #477050] Mon, 10 March 2008 19:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ed Merks is currently offline Ed Merks
Messages: 25919
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000605050605010501080507
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Felix,

Isn't Kenn wonderful?! What would we do without him? I suppose one
place to look for the UML community's opinion on this would be at
EclispeCon:

Eclipse/OMG Symposium <http://www.eclipsecon.org/2008/?page=sub/&id=533>

If I were politically incorrect, I'd suggest looking into the horizon
for the ivory-colored tower. But of course I'm way more politically
correct than that! All joking aside, I think the experience of folks
like you in the community can have a big impact...


Felix Dorner wrote:
> Kenn Hussey wrote:
>> Felix,
>>
>> Redundancy related to behavioral specifications (operations) and
>> their behaviors (methods) is actually the subject of recent debate
>> within the UML community (i.e. the UML 2.2 RTF). I believe this
>> duplication exists to foster decoupling of a behavior's
>> implementation from its declaration; note that the signatures could
>> ini fact be different (although the method must conform to the
>> specification), e.g., the parameter names (but not their types!)
>> could be different...
>
> Thanks Kenn! It
Re: Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour [message #477054 is a reply to message #477053] Mon, 10 March 2008 20:06 Go to previous message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix Dorner
Messages: 675
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Yeah, without him I couldn´t sleep at night anymore :-)
Gee, I´d like to go to eclipsecon sooo much you can´t imagine! Next year
when I am rich I´ll go there..

Good Night,
Felix

Ed Merks wrote:
> Felix,
>
> Isn't Kenn wonderful?! What would we do without him? I suppose one
> place to look for the UML community's opinion on this would be at
> EclispeCon:
>
> Eclipse/OMG Symposium <http://www.eclipsecon.org/2008/?page=sub/&id=533>
Re: Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour [message #626169 is a reply to message #477046] Mon, 10 March 2008 17:40 Go to previous message
Kenn Hussey is currently offline Kenn Hussey
Messages: 1618
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Felix,

Redundancy related to behavioral specifications (operations) and their
behaviors (methods) is actually the subject of recent debate within the UML
community (i.e. the UML 2.2 RTF). I believe this duplication exists to
foster decoupling of a behavior's implementation from its declaration; note
that the signatures could ini fact be different (although the method must
conform to the specification), e.g., the parameter names (but not their
types!) could be different...

Kenn

"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fr3to5$e6c$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hey,
>
> I am designing a small Action Language that can be used to specify the
> behaviour of the operations in a class model. I am looking for good ways
> to link the textual specification of an operation to the operation in the
> model.
>
> After some reading, I think the preferred way to do this, is to create an
> OpaqueBehaviour for every operation I'd like to specify in my language.
>
> One thing is however disturbing: Every Parameter of the Operation must be
> created twice. One owned by the Operation, and the other owned by the
> OpaqueBehaviour.
>
> I don't see the point in that. Could't this association be "derived", or
> even completely ommited from the metamodel, or are there any reasons why
> there is the need for this data to be specified with such a redundancy?
>
> Felix
>
>
>
Re: Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour [message #626170 is a reply to message #477049] Mon, 10 March 2008 18:09 Go to previous message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix Dorner
Messages: 675
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Kenn Hussey wrote:
> Felix,
>
> Redundancy related to behavioral specifications (operations) and their
> behaviors (methods) is actually the subject of recent debate within the UML
> community (i.e. the UML 2.2 RTF). I believe this duplication exists to
> foster decoupling of a behavior's implementation from its declaration; note
> that the signatures could ini fact be different (although the method must
> conform to the specification), e.g., the parameter names (but not their
> types!) could be different...

Thanks Kenn! It´s vital that an insider like you has an eye on this
group. I am now looking for the debate :-p. Where "is" the UML community
that discusses things like these? I hope its not just the vendors...

Felix
Re: Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour [message #626173 is a reply to message #477050] Mon, 10 March 2008 19:14 Go to previous message
Ed Merks is currently offline Ed Merks
Messages: 25919
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000605050605010501080507
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Felix,

Isn't Kenn wonderful?! What would we do without him? I suppose one
place to look for the UML community's opinion on this would be at
EclispeCon:

Eclipse/OMG Symposium <http://www.eclipsecon.org/2008/?page=sub/&id=533>

If I were politically incorrect, I'd suggest looking into the horizon
for the ivory-colored tower. But of course I'm way more politically
correct than that! All joking aside, I think the experience of folks
like you in the community can have a big impact...


Felix Dorner wrote:
> Kenn Hussey wrote:
>> Felix,
>>
>> Redundancy related to behavioral specifications (operations) and
>> their behaviors (methods) is actually the subject of recent debate
>> within the UML community (i.e. the UML 2.2 RTF). I believe this
>> duplication exists to foster decoupling of a behavior's
>> implementation from its declaration; note that the signatures could
>> ini fact be different (although the method must conform to the
>> specification), e.g., the parameter names (but not their types!)
>> could be different...
>
> Thanks Kenn! It
Re: Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour [message #626174 is a reply to message #477053] Mon, 10 March 2008 20:06 Go to previous message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix Dorner
Messages: 675
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Yeah, without him I couldn´t sleep at night anymore :-)
Gee, I´d like to go to eclipsecon sooo much you can´t imagine! Next year
when I am rich I´ll go there..

Good Night,
Felix

Ed Merks wrote:
> Felix,
>
> Isn't Kenn wonderful?! What would we do without him? I suppose one
> place to look for the UML community's opinion on this would be at
> EclispeCon:
>
> Eclipse/OMG Symposium <http://www.eclipsecon.org/2008/?page=sub/&id=533>
Previous Topic:Opaque specification of an operation's behaviour
Next Topic:UML2 for activity&composite diagram?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Jul 25 11:25:05 EDT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01988 seconds