| Defining Component interactions in Sequence Diagram [message #1462343] |
Wed, 05 November 2014 08:27  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi again,
I'd like to draw a sequence diagram specifying the interaction between component instances.
E.g. I have a collaboration with two instances c0 and c1 of two component (i.e. properties c0 and c1 of type Component0 and Component1).
Additionally, Component1 is realising an interface I0 and Component0 is using it.
Now if I draw two lifelines I can specify that they represent c0 and c1.
However, if I draw a Message from c0 to c1, I can't use any operations that are specified in the Interface I0. If I create a new operation, I can't assign it to interface I0.
Is there a way to do this? Should there be one, or am thinking wrongly here?
Cheers,
Grischa
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Defining Component interactions in Sequence Diagram [message #1488313 is a reply to message #1486766] |
Wed, 26 November 2014 08:55  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi,
Component0 can also inherit operations from supertypes
(generalizations), but realized interfaces are not supertypes and their
features are not inherited. A classifier realizing an interface is
responsible for providing some appropriate realizations of the
interface's features, and the form that such realizations take is a
semantic variation point (I think). FWIW, I recall some version of the
UML specification giving an example of a model in a Java-based system
in which interface properties are realized in a class by getter and
setter operations.
HTH,
Christian
On 2014-11-25 09:18:42 +0000, Grischa Liebel said:
> Hi Camille,
>
> my idea was to define a component diagram according to the attached
> image (compDiag.png). Then, I want to define two properties c0 and c1
> of type Component0 and Component1. These, I would then like to use in a
> sequence diagram and define an interaction based on the interface I
> defined in the component diagram.
> However, Papyrus knows only the operations that Component1 owns, not
> the ones that it realises through an interface. I.e. in
> sequenceDiag.png, I can't choose op() from the existing operations. For
> that, I would have to use a property of type IProvides instead.
> Is this intended?
> <image>
> <image>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.07885 seconds
Home