UML 2.2 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

UML22 — Ptc/06-04-02/Pg 188

  • Key: UML22-1118
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10788
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Where the spec currently says:

    “If the port was typed by a class, the interaction point object will be an instance of that class. The latter case allows elaborate specification of the communication over a port. For example, it may describe that communication is filtered, modified in some way, or routed to other parts depending on its contents as specified by the classifier that types the port.”

    Consider whether this should in fact be defined as a semantic variation point.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: The dynamic semantics of a port, when it is typed by a class, is already a semantic variation point. Most of the text above is an example, rather than a definition of behavior. The only normative text above is that the interaction point object will be an instance of the type of the port, if the port is typed by a class. That aspect is currently used by tools to give dynamic semantics to ports in a domain-specific manner. If such is not desired, the modeler can always close the semantic variation point as to the meaning of this construct to behave as desired, e.g., to reduce to the case where the type of the port is an interface. Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT