Skip to main content


Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » UML2 » isLeaf in UML Class Diagram
isLeaf in UML Class Diagram [message #477523] Mon, 16 June 2008 12:48 Go to next message
Timothy Marc is currently offline Timothy MarcFriend
Messages: 547
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi all,

i was doing some uml class diagramm stuff, just for research on my own. In
the UML superstructure i've found the definition of the attribute isLeaf
from RedefinableElement.
Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a RedefinableElement.
If the value is true, then it is not possible to further specialize the
RedefinableElement. Default value is false.

IMHO, that sounds like if you defines an Operation (for example) as a leaf,
it is not allowed to redefine the operation in a subclassing class. Some
kind of "final" in the Java-world. Let me know, if i'm wrong.

I defined a Class A with an Operation foo, with isLeaf = true. Afterwards, i
defined a Class B with operation foo, that redefines the Operation A::foo().
I've exepected the validation to fail, but it succeeded. Did i
missunderstand the meaning of the isLeaf attribute?

Thanks
-- Timothy
Re: isLeaf in UML Class Diagram [message #477525 is a reply to message #477523] Mon, 16 June 2008 18:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james bruck is currently offline james bruckFriend
Messages: 1724
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Timothy,

That's a very interesting observation. I think there is a problem with a
lacking constraint from the spec. It would seem that there should be some
constraint that would check that isLeaf property but after looking through
the spec, I cannot find it. I will double check this with someone from the
OMG and get back to you. We may have to raise an RTF issue.

By the way, not all of the constraints have been implemented in the UML2
project. There is an outstanding bugzilla requesting input from the
community on that. Please feel free to contribute ( have a look at the
existing validation rules as examples ).

Cheers,
- James.



"Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:g35ner$k8o$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi all,
>
> i was doing some uml class diagramm stuff, just for research on my own. In
> the UML superstructure i've found the definition of the attribute isLeaf
> from RedefinableElement.
> Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a
> RedefinableElement. If the value is true, then it is not possible to
> further specialize the RedefinableElement. Default value is false.
>
> IMHO, that sounds like if you defines an Operation (for example) as a
> leaf, it is not allowed to redefine the operation in a subclassing class.
> Some kind of "final" in the Java-world. Let me know, if i'm wrong.
>
> I defined a Class A with an Operation foo, with isLeaf = true. Afterwards,
> i defined a Class B with operation foo, that redefines the Operation
> A::foo(). I've exepected the validation to fail, but it succeeded. Did i
> missunderstand the meaning of the isLeaf attribute?
>
> Thanks
> -- Timothy
>
Re: isLeaf in UML Class Diagram [message #477529 is a reply to message #477525] Tue, 17 June 2008 12:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Timothy Marc is currently offline Timothy MarcFriend
Messages: 547
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Dear James,

where can i find the outstanding bugzilla reports? I've searched form the
both in the eclipsepedia and on google, but didn't found them.

Thanks
--Timothy

"James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:g36ba7$c21$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi Timothy,
>
> That's a very interesting observation. I think there is a problem with a
> lacking constraint from the spec. It would seem that there should be
> some constraint that would check that isLeaf property but after looking
> through the spec, I cannot find it. I will double check this with
> someone from the OMG and get back to you. We may have to raise an RTF
> issue.
>
> By the way, not all of the constraints have been implemented in the UML2
> project. There is an outstanding bugzilla requesting input from the
> community on that. Please feel free to contribute ( have a look at the
> existing validation rules as examples ).
>
> Cheers,
> - James.
>
>
>
> "Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
> news:g35ner$k8o$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> i was doing some uml class diagramm stuff, just for research on my own.
>> In the UML superstructure i've found the definition of the attribute
>> isLeaf from RedefinableElement.
>> Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a
>> RedefinableElement. If the value is true, then it is not possible to
>> further specialize the RedefinableElement. Default value is false.
>>
>> IMHO, that sounds like if you defines an Operation (for example) as a
>> leaf, it is not allowed to redefine the operation in a subclassing class.
>> Some kind of "final" in the Java-world. Let me know, if i'm wrong.
>>
>> I defined a Class A with an Operation foo, with isLeaf = true.
>> Afterwards, i defined a Class B with operation foo, that redefines the
>> Operation A::foo(). I've exepected the validation to fail, but it
>> succeeded. Did i missunderstand the meaning of the isLeaf attribute?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -- Timothy
>>
>
>
Re: isLeaf in UML Class Diagram [message #477532 is a reply to message #477529] Tue, 17 June 2008 17:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
james bruck is currently offline james bruckFriend
Messages: 1724
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
A list of all the UML bugs.
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=MDT&co mponent=UML2&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED& bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=F IXED&resolution=---&order=bugs.bug_status,bugs.targe t_milestone,bugs.bug_id&query_format=advanced


The particular bug in question:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80307


Cheers,
- James.


"Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:g389vs$7s7$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Dear James,
>
> where can i find the outstanding bugzilla reports? I've searched form the
> both in the eclipsepedia and on google, but didn't found them.
>
> Thanks
> --Timothy
>
> "James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:g36ba7$c21$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Hi Timothy,
>>
>> That's a very interesting observation. I think there is a problem with
>> a lacking constraint from the spec. It would seem that there should be
>> some constraint that would check that isLeaf property but after looking
>> through the spec, I cannot find it. I will double check this with
>> someone from the OMG and get back to you. We may have to raise an RTF
>> issue.
>>
>> By the way, not all of the constraints have been implemented in the UML2
>> project. There is an outstanding bugzilla requesting input from the
>> community on that. Please feel free to contribute ( have a look at the
>> existing validation rules as examples ).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> - James.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
>> news:g35ner$k8o$1@build.eclipse.org...
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> i was doing some uml class diagramm stuff, just for research on my own.
>>> In the UML superstructure i've found the definition of the attribute
>>> isLeaf from RedefinableElement.
>>> Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a
>>> RedefinableElement. If the value is true, then it is not possible to
>>> further specialize the RedefinableElement. Default value is false.
>>>
>>> IMHO, that sounds like if you defines an Operation (for example) as a
>>> leaf, it is not allowed to redefine the operation in a subclassing
>>> class. Some kind of "final" in the Java-world. Let me know, if i'm
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> I defined a Class A with an Operation foo, with isLeaf = true.
>>> Afterwards, i defined a Class B with operation foo, that redefines the
>>> Operation A::foo(). I've exepected the validation to fail, but it
>>> succeeded. Did i missunderstand the meaning of the isLeaf attribute?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -- Timothy
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: isLeaf in UML Class Diagram [message #477533 is a reply to message #477532] Tue, 17 June 2008 17:46 Go to previous message
james bruck is currently offline james bruckFriend
Messages: 1724
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Timothy,

Issue 12532 was raised at the OMG to address this issue.

Cheers,
- James.



"James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:g38s60$bhd$1@build.eclipse.org...
>A list of all the UML bugs.
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=MDT&co mponent=UML2&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED& bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=F IXED&resolution=---&order=bugs.bug_status,bugs.targe t_milestone,bugs.bug_id&query_format=advanced
>
>
> The particular bug in question:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80307
>
>
> Cheers,
> - James.
>
>
> "Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
> news:g389vs$7s7$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Dear James,
>>
>> where can i find the outstanding bugzilla reports? I've searched form the
>> both in the eclipsepedia and on google, but didn't found them.
>>
>> Thanks
>> --Timothy
>>
>> "James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:g36ba7$c21$1@build.eclipse.org...
>>> Hi Timothy,
>>>
>>> That's a very interesting observation. I think there is a problem with
>>> a lacking constraint from the spec. It would seem that there should be
>>> some constraint that would check that isLeaf property but after looking
>>> through the spec, I cannot find it. I will double check this with
>>> someone from the OMG and get back to you. We may have to raise an RTF
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> By the way, not all of the constraints have been implemented in the UML2
>>> project. There is an outstanding bugzilla requesting input from the
>>> community on that. Please feel free to contribute ( have a look at the
>>> existing validation rules as examples ).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> - James.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
>>> news:g35ner$k8o$1@build.eclipse.org...
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> i was doing some uml class diagramm stuff, just for research on my own.
>>>> In the UML superstructure i've found the definition of the attribute
>>>> isLeaf from RedefinableElement.
>>>> Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a
>>>> RedefinableElement. If the value is true, then it is not possible to
>>>> further specialize the RedefinableElement. Default value is false.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, that sounds like if you defines an Operation (for example) as a
>>>> leaf, it is not allowed to redefine the operation in a subclassing
>>>> class. Some kind of "final" in the Java-world. Let me know, if i'm
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I defined a Class A with an Operation foo, with isLeaf = true.
>>>> Afterwards, i defined a Class B with operation foo, that redefines the
>>>> Operation A::foo(). I've exepected the validation to fail, but it
>>>> succeeded. Did i missunderstand the meaning of the isLeaf attribute?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -- Timothy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: isLeaf in UML Class Diagram [message #626715 is a reply to message #477523] Mon, 16 June 2008 18:27 Go to previous message
james bruck is currently offline james bruckFriend
Messages: 1724
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Timothy,

That's a very interesting observation. I think there is a problem with a
lacking constraint from the spec. It would seem that there should be some
constraint that would check that isLeaf property but after looking through
the spec, I cannot find it. I will double check this with someone from the
OMG and get back to you. We may have to raise an RTF issue.

By the way, not all of the constraints have been implemented in the UML2
project. There is an outstanding bugzilla requesting input from the
community on that. Please feel free to contribute ( have a look at the
existing validation rules as examples ).

Cheers,
- James.



"Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:g35ner$k8o$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi all,
>
> i was doing some uml class diagramm stuff, just for research on my own. In
> the UML superstructure i've found the definition of the attribute isLeaf
> from RedefinableElement.
> Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a
> RedefinableElement. If the value is true, then it is not possible to
> further specialize the RedefinableElement. Default value is false.
>
> IMHO, that sounds like if you defines an Operation (for example) as a
> leaf, it is not allowed to redefine the operation in a subclassing class.
> Some kind of "final" in the Java-world. Let me know, if i'm wrong.
>
> I defined a Class A with an Operation foo, with isLeaf = true. Afterwards,
> i defined a Class B with operation foo, that redefines the Operation
> A::foo(). I've exepected the validation to fail, but it succeeded. Did i
> missunderstand the meaning of the isLeaf attribute?
>
> Thanks
> -- Timothy
>
Re: isLeaf in UML Class Diagram [message #626719 is a reply to message #477525] Tue, 17 June 2008 12:16 Go to previous message
Timothy Marc is currently offline Timothy MarcFriend
Messages: 547
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Dear James,

where can i find the outstanding bugzilla reports? I've searched form the
both in the eclipsepedia and on google, but didn't found them.

Thanks
--Timothy

"James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:g36ba7$c21$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi Timothy,
>
> That's a very interesting observation. I think there is a problem with a
> lacking constraint from the spec. It would seem that there should be
> some constraint that would check that isLeaf property but after looking
> through the spec, I cannot find it. I will double check this with
> someone from the OMG and get back to you. We may have to raise an RTF
> issue.
>
> By the way, not all of the constraints have been implemented in the UML2
> project. There is an outstanding bugzilla requesting input from the
> community on that. Please feel free to contribute ( have a look at the
> existing validation rules as examples ).
>
> Cheers,
> - James.
>
>
>
> "Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
> news:g35ner$k8o$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> i was doing some uml class diagramm stuff, just for research on my own.
>> In the UML superstructure i've found the definition of the attribute
>> isLeaf from RedefinableElement.
>> Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a
>> RedefinableElement. If the value is true, then it is not possible to
>> further specialize the RedefinableElement. Default value is false.
>>
>> IMHO, that sounds like if you defines an Operation (for example) as a
>> leaf, it is not allowed to redefine the operation in a subclassing class.
>> Some kind of "final" in the Java-world. Let me know, if i'm wrong.
>>
>> I defined a Class A with an Operation foo, with isLeaf = true.
>> Afterwards, i defined a Class B with operation foo, that redefines the
>> Operation A::foo(). I've exepected the validation to fail, but it
>> succeeded. Did i missunderstand the meaning of the isLeaf attribute?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -- Timothy
>>
>
>
Re: isLeaf in UML Class Diagram [message #626722 is a reply to message #477529] Tue, 17 June 2008 17:27 Go to previous message
james bruck is currently offline james bruckFriend
Messages: 1724
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
A list of all the UML bugs.
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=MDT&co mponent=UML2&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED& bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=F IXED&resolution=---&order=bugs.bug_status,bugs.targe t_milestone,bugs.bug_id&query_format=advanced


The particular bug in question:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80307


Cheers,
- James.


"Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:g389vs$7s7$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Dear James,
>
> where can i find the outstanding bugzilla reports? I've searched form the
> both in the eclipsepedia and on google, but didn't found them.
>
> Thanks
> --Timothy
>
> "James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:g36ba7$c21$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Hi Timothy,
>>
>> That's a very interesting observation. I think there is a problem with
>> a lacking constraint from the spec. It would seem that there should be
>> some constraint that would check that isLeaf property but after looking
>> through the spec, I cannot find it. I will double check this with
>> someone from the OMG and get back to you. We may have to raise an RTF
>> issue.
>>
>> By the way, not all of the constraints have been implemented in the UML2
>> project. There is an outstanding bugzilla requesting input from the
>> community on that. Please feel free to contribute ( have a look at the
>> existing validation rules as examples ).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> - James.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
>> news:g35ner$k8o$1@build.eclipse.org...
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> i was doing some uml class diagramm stuff, just for research on my own.
>>> In the UML superstructure i've found the definition of the attribute
>>> isLeaf from RedefinableElement.
>>> Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a
>>> RedefinableElement. If the value is true, then it is not possible to
>>> further specialize the RedefinableElement. Default value is false.
>>>
>>> IMHO, that sounds like if you defines an Operation (for example) as a
>>> leaf, it is not allowed to redefine the operation in a subclassing
>>> class. Some kind of "final" in the Java-world. Let me know, if i'm
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> I defined a Class A with an Operation foo, with isLeaf = true.
>>> Afterwards, i defined a Class B with operation foo, that redefines the
>>> Operation A::foo(). I've exepected the validation to fail, but it
>>> succeeded. Did i missunderstand the meaning of the isLeaf attribute?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -- Timothy
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: isLeaf in UML Class Diagram [message #626723 is a reply to message #477532] Tue, 17 June 2008 17:46 Go to previous message
james bruck is currently offline james bruckFriend
Messages: 1724
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Timothy,

Issue 12532 was raised at the OMG to address this issue.

Cheers,
- James.



"James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:g38s60$bhd$1@build.eclipse.org...
>A list of all the UML bugs.
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=MDT&co mponent=UML2&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED& bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=F IXED&resolution=---&order=bugs.bug_status,bugs.targe t_milestone,bugs.bug_id&query_format=advanced
>
>
> The particular bug in question:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80307
>
>
> Cheers,
> - James.
>
>
> "Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
> news:g389vs$7s7$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Dear James,
>>
>> where can i find the outstanding bugzilla reports? I've searched form the
>> both in the eclipsepedia and on google, but didn't found them.
>>
>> Thanks
>> --Timothy
>>
>> "James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:g36ba7$c21$1@build.eclipse.org...
>>> Hi Timothy,
>>>
>>> That's a very interesting observation. I think there is a problem with
>>> a lacking constraint from the spec. It would seem that there should be
>>> some constraint that would check that isLeaf property but after looking
>>> through the spec, I cannot find it. I will double check this with
>>> someone from the OMG and get back to you. We may have to raise an RTF
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> By the way, not all of the constraints have been implemented in the UML2
>>> project. There is an outstanding bugzilla requesting input from the
>>> community on that. Please feel free to contribute ( have a look at the
>>> existing validation rules as examples ).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> - James.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Timothy Marc" <timothymarc@freenet.de> wrote in message
>>> news:g35ner$k8o$1@build.eclipse.org...
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> i was doing some uml class diagramm stuff, just for research on my own.
>>>> In the UML superstructure i've found the definition of the attribute
>>>> isLeaf from RedefinableElement.
>>>> Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a
>>>> RedefinableElement. If the value is true, then it is not possible to
>>>> further specialize the RedefinableElement. Default value is false.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, that sounds like if you defines an Operation (for example) as a
>>>> leaf, it is not allowed to redefine the operation in a subclassing
>>>> class. Some kind of "final" in the Java-world. Let me know, if i'm
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I defined a Class A with an Operation foo, with isLeaf = true.
>>>> Afterwards, i defined a Class B with operation foo, that redefines the
>>>> Operation A::foo(). I've exepected the validation to fail, but it
>>>> succeeded. Did i missunderstand the meaning of the isLeaf attribute?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -- Timothy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Previous Topic:subscribe
Next Topic:Usage of StateMachine or ProtocolStateMachine
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Apr 02 16:58:50 GMT 2020

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02658 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software

Back to the top