|
|
Re: Template Parameter upper/lower bound spec [message #477365 is a reply to message #477364] |
Wed, 07 May 2008 16:54 |
james bruck Messages: 1724 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
.... 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$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Hello,
>>
>> Fascinated I read the UML templates article again. It somehow suggests
>> that it is _not_ possible to specify an upper/lower bound for a template
>> parameter in 'native' UML. Do I understand that right?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Felix
>
>
|
|
|
|
Re: Template Parameter upper/lower bound spec [message #626544 is a reply to message #477364] |
Wed, 07 May 2008 16:54 |
james bruck Messages: 1724 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
.... A discusson of this was done at EclipseCon2008 , you may find other
useful info here:
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/uml2/docs/presentations/ EclipseCon2008_LongTalk_NewFeaturesOfUML2_files/frame.htm
Cheers,
- James.
"James Bruck" <jbruck@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:fvsmlb$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 0.05082 seconds