| Defining Activity as the root element of ActivityD [message #606378] |
Fri, 06 July 2007 11:25 |
 Philippe
Messages: 100
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi,
I know I already asked this question but I have new arguments about it.
my use case is simple:
A class can owns several Activities as ownedBehavior, I think it's the
good way to attach behavior to a class. But I really want to edit these
activities on diagrams, and I cannot do it for now because the root for
an activity Diagram has to be a package.
Providing the possibilities to see several activities on one diagram
seems not so important, a navigation link using the Behavior property of
a Call Behavior Action should be sufficient.
Several modelers have already clearly defined that activity has to be
the root element for an activity diagram and I think it's the good choice.
I'd like to have the opinion of others about it.
Regards
Philippe
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02013 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
