Issue 5659: Section 3.90.2.2 (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Texas Department of Human Services (Mr. Srinivas Nedunuri, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Summary: Section 3.90.2.2 says "In other words when a state prodices an outpout that is input to the subsequent state, that object flow relationship implies a control constraint." I take it that this is not the same as isSynch being true? That is isSynch means that an object in an object flow is rather like a token in a Petri net. ie once it flows out to the consuming state, its gone from its place. Is that correct? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 27, 2002: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: Object flow states and isSynch no longer exist in UML 2 Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== From: "Nedunuri,Srinivas" To: "'issues@omg.org'" Cc: "'wask@omg.org'" Subject: parameters to object flow states Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:26:30 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Hello, I have been studying the UML 1.4 spec for some time now, and have been struggling with how to interpret some of the statements, particularly regarding Activity Graphs/Diagrams. I would appreciate clarification on the following: (5) Clarification: Section 3.90.2.2 says "In other words when a state prodices an outpout that is input to the subsequent state, that object flow relationship implies a control constraint." I take it that this is not the same as isSynch being true? That is isSynch means that an object in an object flow is rather like a token in a Petri net. ie once it flows out to the consuming state, its gone from its place. Is that correct? --------------------------------------------------- Appreciate your help in this. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification. Yours Srinivas Nedunuri TDHS/COMSYS Texas Dept. of Human Services 701 W. 51st St, C2-D16 Austin Texas 78751 512-438-2226