Issue 14588: are Create messages aynch or synch, or doesn't it matter? (uml2-rtf) Source: Model Driven Solutions (Mr. Steve Cook, steve-c(at)modeldriven.org) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In 14.3.24, the textual definition of MessageSort is badly formatted, which needs to be fixed. Then it provides for messages of sorts synchCall, asynchCall, asynchSignal, createMessage, deleteMessage and reply. So is a createMessage synchronous, or asynchronous, or can it be either? The semantics of CreateObjectAction say “The new object is returned as the value of the action” - which implies that synchronous ought to be a possibility. But chapter 14 appears silent on this topic. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 28, 2009: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: Steve Cook To: "issues@omg.org" CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: UML2 issues: are Create messages aynch or synch, or doesn't it matter? Thread-Topic: UML2 issues: are Create messages aynch or synch, or doesn't it matter? Thread-Index: AcpXwyCGF3rE/SI4SLmzj7vARQg9ig== Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:38:10 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: In 14.3.24, the textual definition of MessageSort is badly formatted, which needs to be fixed. Then it provides for messages of sorts synchCall, asynchCall, asynchSignal, createMessage, deleteMessage and reply. So is a createMessage synchronous, or asynchronous, or can it be either? The semantics of CreateObjectAction say .The new object is returned as the value of the action. - which implies that synchronous ought to be a possibility. But chapter 14 appears silent on this topic. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; bh=9dINbpWtKzI0f+YQqzW1GfJdoYv0FiyjhtZJfR6cYz4=; b=TPHxuiP4kWlvURikp1nq9MLqpGjPNIa6M7bgkOajcmqS3xT3ZqC7F0JDwUG19uhLIR 5Dj6rhGbzuyfCZDAM/GbQfUxbk9LItWELOmXisjBauIUYF96TkgRStNpbPOTtcdWtGT8 qCSjrkH5x2liErIQvESZ6TvC54zVVG2zibmnc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=J4ztPTMGzBfIwBDAWP4/Ex8pdij4ft1NrHg5X5YuOjNpsEtWSuvxC61O3bSGDcmIe8 +E2mLZsdoQM/fuwPwX3Fwlghez/LVOoVrx44dYkdRuQ4/9ZvRtBKn/0KBxUD8jaJYpxi HWEJZKSixGNJwg2Jn95Jx81Nx7XX6uTpdW+c8= Sender: bran.selic@gmail.com From: Bran Selic Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:52:59 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 329ebaa09aa835fd Subject: Re: UML2 issues: are Create messages aynch or synch, or doesn't it matter? To: Steve Cook Cc: "issues@omg.org" , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" I believe that in fUML, CreateObjectAction is synchronous and returns the id of the created object. Bran On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steve Cook wrote: In 14.3.24, the textual definition of MessageSort is badly formatted, which needs to be fixed. Then it provides for messages of sorts synchCall, asynchCall, asynchSignal, createMessage, deleteMessage and reply. So is a createMessage synchronous, or asynchronous, or can it be either? The semantics of CreateObjectAction say .The new object is returned as the value of the action. - which implies that synchronous ought to be a possibility. But chapter 14 appears silent on this topic. From: Steve Cook To: "Chonoles, Michael J" , Bran Selic CC: "issues@omg.org" , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: UML2 issues: are Create messages aynch or synch, or doesn't it matter? Thread-Topic: UML2 issues: are Create messages aynch or synch, or doesn't it matter? Thread-Index: AQHKV/Eqq6GVtHZSvEeM1PwzcRZTKJEbMo1A Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:10:35 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: I totally agree. But my question is not about whether these things are a good idea or not; it is about the syntax and semantics of UML Interaction Diagrams. Is it correct to have a synchronous create message on one? An asynchronous create message? What.s the notation? What.s the correct metamodel instantiation? From: Chonoles, Michael J [mailto:michael.j.chonoles@lmco.com] Sent: 28 October 2009 17:06 To: Bran Selic; Steve Cook Cc: issues@omg.org; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: UML2 issues: are Create messages aynch or synch, or doesn't it matter? I see no reason that create needs to be asynch. Though most of the situations, at the lowest level, I might have synchronous calls, at the higher level, where I might be modeling, the creator need not wait for any id/pointer. Michael Jesse Chonoles Lockheed Martin From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:53 AM To: Steve Cook Cc: issues@omg.org; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: UML2 issues: are Create messages aynch or synch, or doesn't it matter? I believe that in fUML, CreateObjectAction is synchronous and returns the id of the created object. Bran On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Steve Cook wrote: In 14.3.24, the textual definition of MessageSort is badly formatted, which needs to be fixed. Then it provides for messages of sorts synchCall, asynchCall, asynchSignal, createMessage, deleteMessage and reply. So is a createMessage synchronous, or asynchronous, or can it be either? The semantics of CreateObjectAction say .The new object is returned as the value of the action. - which implies that synchronous ought to be a possibility. But chapter 14 appears silent on this topic.