| InstanceSpecification whose classifier is an activity, why not? [message #626924] |
Tue, 16 September 2008 14:10 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: reichwein.isd.uni-stuttgart.de
Hello,
I am analysing different possibilities to map a Simulink model to a UML
activity model with appropriate lightweight extensions. I am using the
Eclipse UML2 Project to program the implementation of this Simulink-UML
interface.
I am confronted with the problem of wanting to link actions with
instances of activities and not directly with activities. So instead of
a callBehaviorAction, a callBehaviorInstanceAction would be great :-)
The activities which are called from the actions share the same
properties, so it would be practical to have on one hand a library of
activities and on the other instanceSpecifications of activities,
similar to classes and instanceSpecifications of classes. Surprisingly,
I have not yet seen examples of activity instances. Although, following
the specification, Activity (from BasicActivities) extends Class (from
Kernel), so in theory, instances could also have as classifier an
activity. The Simulink concept of a library of blocks (in UML:
activities) and instances of blocks in a model (in UML: actions
referring to activity instances) could then be described in UML. As a
current solution, I intend to add a stereotype to the
callBehaviorAction, which will refer to the instanceSpecification of the
activity.
Any comments or other propositions are very welcome.
Best regards,
Axel
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02899 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
