Issue 14935: Simplify by Making UML More Consistent: Allow States to be model as classes supporting inheritance and composition (uml2-rtf)
Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: In OMT, states could be modeling on the class diagram, which was a powerful alternative approach to capture the structure of a state machine. It made clear the relationships between entry/exit actions of superstates on substates, the ability to override responses to trigger/actions pairs of superstates by a substate, the scope of a defer, what a history node really does, etc. understandable in a way that statemachines don’t do because of their different presentation style. This should also restore the ability to identify state-specific attributes and constraints, and the ability to specify parameters on the state’s possible behaviors – two features that have often been requested. Restoring this ability will make UML treatment of states more like their treatment for classes. Similar ideas have been periodically proposed, see http://www.conradbock.org/statemachine.html.


Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
January 11, 2010: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
te: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:03:38 -0500
From: "Chonoles, Michael J" <michael.j.chonoles@lmco.com>
Subject: UML Issue: Simplify by Making UML More Consistent: Allow States to be model as classes supporting inheritance and
 composition
To: "issues@omg.org" <issues@omg.org>
Thread-Topic: UML Issue: Simplify by Making UML More Consistent: Allow States to be model as classes supporting inheritance
 and composition
Thread-Index: AcqSe23llbftKF6DQcCUQkG7/uT1uA==
Accept-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 


Simplify by Making UML More Consistent: Allow States to be model as classes supporting inheritance and composition.

In OMT, states could be modeling on the class diagram, which was a powerful alternative approach to capture the structure of a state machine. It made clear the relationships between entry/exit actions of superstates on substates, the ability to override responses to trigger/actions pairs of superstates by a substate, the scope of a defer, what a history node really does, etc. understandable in a way that statemachines don.t do because of their different presentation style. This should also restore the ability to identify state-specific attributes and constraints, and the ability to specify parameters on the state.s possible behaviors . two features that have often been requested. Restoring this ability will make UML treatment of states more like their treatment for classes. Similar ideas have been periodically proposed, see http://www.conradbock.org/statemachine.html.

 

Michael Jesse Chonoles
LMCO/SE-DSIG