[Modeling] RE: Comments on interaction diagram modeling doc

[James Odell]

Agreed.

Stephen, quick question.  When you say "It might be necessary to restrict
this usage, e.g. maybe Role2 should be a sub-role of Role 1", do you mean
Role2 is a subtype of Role1, or that Role2 consists of several roles where
Role1 is one of them?

-Jim


On 3/19/03 5:09 PM, "Stephen Cranefield" indited:

> Marc-Philippe Huget wrote:
>> and what about what I propose in the document: the ability to
>> distinguish an
>> agent for a specific message, is it too stupid?
> 
> It would be useful to be able to indicate *for individual messages*
> what role the sender is considering the recipient to be playing.
> This would be useful when it would be too cumbersome to use a separate
> lifeline to represent the recipient playing that role (e.g. when the
> separate lifeline would only be needed for a single message in the
> interaction).
> 
> UML associations allow an association end to be annotated with an
> "interface specifier" using the format ": ClassifierName".  This
> "indicates the behavior expected of an associated object by the
> related instance".  Perhaps we could allow this notation to be used
> on interaction diagrams as well, i.e. a message could look like
> this:
> 
> +-----+      +-----------+
> |  a  |      |  b: Role1 |
> +-----+      +-----------+
>  |        :Role2 |
>  |-------------->|
>  |               |
> 
> It might be necesary to restrict this usage, e.g. maybe Role2 should
> be a sub-role of Role 1.
> 
> - Stephen