|
|
|
| Re: (no subject) [message #691756 is a reply to message #691456] |
Sat, 02 July 2011 08:51   |
 st oehm
Messages: 79
Registered: October 2009 |
Member |
|
|
hi ed
thanks for your reply.
i'm not sure if i understood all now(because i'm still thinking that way, that an association is between classes):
an association is between its associationsends, which are properties, the properties has an type, and this type is the part of the association (that would mean the owner of the attribute has no influence)?
for example three classes A,B,C and one association (like in the picture):
class A has an property with type C and Class B has an property with type C, the associationsends of the association are the properties of the classes A and B. Now when the type of the property is deciding, then that would mean we have an reflective Association from the class C, although the owners of the properties are Class A and B?
that seems a little bit strange to me
Attachment: ClassABC.png
(Size: 228.36KB, Downloaded 241 times)
|
|
|
| Re: (no subject) [message #691777 is a reply to message #691756] |
Sat, 02 July 2011 09:23 |
Ed Willink
Messages: 7655
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi
It certainly seems strange to me.
Just because you have N information fields that you can enter, it does
not mean that you have a free choice for all of them.
Have you validated your example?
The usual case for a bidirectional association is that each end has the
opposite container as its type; two type choices are therefore constrained.
The extra UML specification complexity seems to arise from an ability to
have an association to a type that cannot own associationEnds/properties
so the association has to own the associationEnd/property on behalf of
that type.
I recommend ignoring the complex case and concentrate on the more
obvious bidirectional use case.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 02/07/2011 10:51, stoehm wrote:
> hi ed
> thanks for your reply.
> i'm not sure if i understood all now(because i'm still thinking that way, that an association is between classes):
> an association is between its associationsends, which are properties, the properties has an type, and this type is the part of the association (that would mean the owner of the attribute has no influence)?
> for example three classes A,B,C and one association (like in the picture):
> class A has an property with type C and Class B has an property with type C, the associationsends of the association are the properties of the classes A and B. Now when the type of the property is deciding, then that would mean we have an reflective Association from the class C, although the owners of the properties are Class A and B?
> that seems a little bit strange to me
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03450 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
