UML 2.3 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

UML23 — current definition of a 'local' transition does not allow the case to have a local transition

  • Key: UML23-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13920
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Adam Neal)
  • Summary:

    To properly and unambiguously constrain which Region 'should' own a transition, requires that the transition kind be used (further work on issue 10498). The current definition of a 'local' transition does not allow the case to have a local transition whose target is a composite state and source is nested within that composite state. It should be possible to assign this kind of transition local semantics, i.e., the composite state will not be exited nor entered; only the nested configuration of composite state will be affected as a result of exiting the nested source state and establishing a configuration for the composite state itself, i.e., the target.

  • Reported: UML 2.2 — Tue, 5 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update the text to explicitly include the possibility. Also, remove the reference to local self-transitions and
    replace them with an explanation about the representation of internal transitions

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