[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fw: [sca-assembly] SCA Visual Modeling "Standard?"
This posting on behalf of Jeff Anderson.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 1:52 PM
Subject: FW: [sca-assembly] SCA Visual Modeling
"Standard?" For some reason my posts do not seem to be making it to the
SCA assembly list From: Anderson, Jeff T (CA - Toronto) Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 2:10 PM To: sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] SCA Visual Modeling "Standard?" As discussed,
I've put together a first cut at what I believe is a good UML representation of how an SCA composite could be diagramed. I found that the component diagrams, especially the UML 2.x version, were able to cover most of the SCA concepts , although to UML purists I did have to be a little creative. I know some of the previous discussion here centered around using "composite" diagrams, however after doing some further research, I do not believe that UML composites are appropriate. I've attached the initial diagrams for reference, simply explained I applied the following mappings . Composite >a component with service, components, or references inside interface >component interface
reference >is simply a UML port from the point of view
of the component, and can be modeled as a delegate to a port when showing an
exposed reference
service >can be modeled as a component interface that
has been exposed to the outside world using a delegate.
Properties >with a little tweaking, realization artifacts contained in a component could be extended to model properties of a composite or component. This will allow for much richer modeling of properties than simple squares shown in the current SCA diagrams. Basically we can use all the notation available in class diagrams to model the properties. Does anybody find this UML representation to be useful? if
so, where would we document any decisions that we have around what would be the
"normative" modeling approach using UML? Would have alternate
representations in the actual specifications, ruled me just produce a separate
documentation and with this ride how we are extending UML to cover the concepts
described in SCA?
Any comments would be much appreciated
Jeff Anderson
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 11:21 AM To: David Booz; Jeffrey A. Estefan Cc: Moberg Dale; Martin Chapman; Michael Rowley; sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] SCA Visual Modeling "Standard?" There can be different expressions of the model for different audiences. The architect/UML heads like myself can make use of the UML models and we can also chose a simpler convention (concept maps??) for business people. Given they are both expressions of the same thing, it should not present issues if modeled properly. I favor UML as the more terse, normative as the binary relationships can be far more meaningful. /duane On 9/28/07 5:17 AM, "David Booz" <booz@us.ibm.com> wrote: I see that Martin posted an email to raise the visual modelling issue. I'll not address merits of the issue until we can formally address the issue, but will only try to address the historical question you raised. -- ********************************************************************** "Speaking only for myself" Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury MAX 2007 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/07/adobe-max-2007.html **********************************************************************
************************************************************************************** Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. Information confidentielle: Le présent message, ainsi que tout fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie, distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci. ************************************************************************************** |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]