| Template Parameter upper/lower bound spec [message #477337] |
Sat, 03 May 2008 11:31  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hello,
Fascinated I read the UML templates article again. It somehow suggests that it
is _not_ possible to specify an upper/lower bound for a template parameter in
'native' UML. Do I understand that right?
Thanks,
Felix
|
|
|
|
| Re: Template Parameter upper/lower bound spec [message #477365 is a reply to message #477364] |
Wed, 07 May 2008 12:54  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
.... A discusson of this was done at EclipseCon2008 , you may find other
useful info here:
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/uml2/docs/presentations/ EclipseCon2008_LongTalk_NewFeaturesOfUML2_files/frame.htm
Cheers,
- James.
"James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:fvsmlb$obb$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi Felix,
>
> Sorry about the delayed response...
>
> Yes, to my knowledge there is no way of explicitly setting the kinds of
> upper and lower bounds such as Java's wildards allows you to do.
> Of the type List < ? extends Car> or List<? super Car>.
>
> For type parameters, UML has a concept of
> ClassifierTemplateParameter::constrainingClassifier but currently the
> multiplicity is [1], whereas Java allows multiplicity [*] on such things.
>
> There do appear to be some "holes" in the current spec. in this area.
> Some issues have been raised with the OMG and will make their way into the
> next version of the spec.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - James.
>
>
>
> "Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
> news:fvi0gv$7rs$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Hello,
>>
>> Fascinated I read the UML templates article again. It somehow suggests
>> that it is _not_ possible to specify an upper/lower bound for a template
>> parameter in 'native' UML. Do I understand that right?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Felix
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Template Parameter upper/lower bound spec [message #626543 is a reply to message #477337] |
Wed, 07 May 2008 12:50 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Felix,
Sorry about the delayed response...
Yes, to my knowledge there is no way of explicitly setting the kinds of
upper and lower bounds such as Java's wildards allows you to do.
Of the type List < ? extends Car> or List<? super Car>.
For type parameters, UML has a concept of
ClassifierTemplateParameter::constrainingClassifier but currently the
multiplicity is [1], whereas Java allows multiplicity [*] on such things.
There do appear to be some "holes" in the current spec. in this area. Some
issues have been raised with the OMG and will make their way into the next
version of the spec.
Cheers,
- James.
"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fvi0gv$7rs$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hello,
>
> Fascinated I read the UML templates article again. It somehow suggests
> that it is _not_ possible to specify an upper/lower bound for a template
> parameter in 'native' UML. Do I understand that right?
>
> Thanks,
> Felix
|
|
|
| Re: Template Parameter upper/lower bound spec [message #626544 is a reply to message #477364] |
Wed, 07 May 2008 12:54 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
.... A discusson of this was done at EclipseCon2008 , you may find other
useful info here:
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/uml2/docs/presentations/ EclipseCon2008_LongTalk_NewFeaturesOfUML2_files/frame.htm
Cheers,
- James.
"James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:fvsmlb$obb$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi Felix,
>
> Sorry about the delayed response...
>
> Yes, to my knowledge there is no way of explicitly setting the kinds of
> upper and lower bounds such as Java's wildards allows you to do.
> Of the type List < ? extends Car> or List<? super Car>.
>
> For type parameters, UML has a concept of
> ClassifierTemplateParameter::constrainingClassifier but currently the
> multiplicity is [1], whereas Java allows multiplicity [*] on such things.
>
> There do appear to be some "holes" in the current spec. in this area.
> Some issues have been raised with the OMG and will make their way into the
> next version of the spec.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - James.
>
>
>
> "Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
> news:fvi0gv$7rs$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Hello,
>>
>> Fascinated I read the UML templates article again. It somehow suggests
>> that it is _not_ possible to specify an upper/lower bound for a template
>> parameter in 'native' UML. Do I understand that right?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Felix
>
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.30645 seconds
Home