Issue 10477: Lightweight RTC package diagram                                                                                                                                                                         (rtc-ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: Minor
Summary: At the Figure 7.2 Lightweight RTC package, it explains about Lightweight RTC but followings are mixed in the diagram.

    * Meta model:
          o Describes how each model element relates to other elements. Since it is a model that focused on the static relationship among elements, it does not describe operation usually. 
    * Stereotype description
          o Describes what the base elements such as Component, elements already described for the elements described newly in the specification, are and what additive attributes are . 
    * Interface description
          o Describes what sort of operation each element has. 

In the OMG specification, it seems that the elements are categorized and described in separate diagrams mostly. Therefore, I think it would be better if the diagram should be divided as follows. (I think it would be better that Interface description should be described at the beginning of explanation about individual element.)
Resolution: Add diagrams as described below
Revised Text: ·	In section 7.2.2, Components, the Figure 7.2, Lightweight RTC Package, should be replaced with the following.
 Figure 7.2 - Lightweight RTC Stereotypes
·	In section 7.2.2.1, lightweightRTComponent, Figure 7.3, Example component realizes LightweightRTObject, should be replaced with the following. (Note that the return types of all ComponentAction callbacks have been changed to ReturnCode_t-see issue 10491.)
 Figure 7.3 - Lightweight RTC M1 Illustration

Actions taken:
December 5, 2006: received issue
January 15, 2008: closed issue
Discussion: 
Proposed Resolution

The element of !ExecutionContextEntity is added. This is because !ExecutionContext is defined as interface. I think it would be better that the element that realized !ExecutionContext was necessary and added it.

[attachment:lightweight-rtc-metamodel.png] [[BR]] Meta-Model

[attachment:lightweight-rtc-stereotype.png] [[BR]] Stereotype

Discussion

I agree with the reorganization of the diagrams. Regarding !ExecutionContextEntity: if a class would be clearer/more useful than an interface, I think it would be better to just make !ExecutionContext a class instead of introducing a new type. -- RickWarren, 2006/11/27
End of Annotations:=====
MG issue 10477: Lightweight RTC package diagram

Source: Technologic Arts (Takeshi Sakamoto, <tsakamoto AT SPAMFREE tech-arts DOT co DOT jp>)

Severity: Minor

Disposition: Resolution Proposed

Summary

At the Figure 7.2 Lightweight RTC package, it explains about Lightweight RTC but followings are mixed in the diagram.

    * Meta model:
          o Describes how each model element relates to other elements. Since it is a model that focused on the static relationship among elements, it does not describe operation usually. 
    * Stereotype description
          o Describes what the base elements such as Component, elements already described for the elements described newly in the specification, are and what additive attributes are . 
    * Interface description
          o Describes what sort of operation each element has. 

In the OMG specification, it seems that the elements are categorized and described in separate diagrams mostly. Therefore, I think it would be better if the diagram should be divided as follows. (I think it would be better that Interface description should be described at the beginning of explanation about individual element.)

Proposed Resolution

The element of ExecutionContextEntity is added. This is because ExecutionContext is defined as interface. I think it would be better that the element that realized ExecutionContext was necessary and added it.

[attachment:lightweight-rtc-metamodel.png]
Meta-Model

[attachment:lightweight-rtc-stereotype.png]
Stereotype

Discussion

I agree with the reorganization of the diagrams. Regarding ExecutionContextEntity: if a class would be clearer/more useful than an interface, I think it would be better to just make ExecutionContext a class instead of introducing a new type. -- RickWarren, 2006/11/27