Issue 5702: <<CRasync>>, <<CRsync>> (uml-scheduling-ftf) Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: <<CRasync>>, <<CRsync>>: In my understanding, UML already includes means to represent sync and async invocations (through the arrow shape - e.g. in RTS one can edit the 'Timing' folder in the methods properties). Therefore, I would consider these stereotypes as alternative to the already existing UML notation. Nevertheless, such stereotypes are associated with the UML notion of action (e.g. OSD::Step), what forbids combining them directly with the methods invocations (or operations). To be more exact, I suggest allowing these stereotypes to be associated also with operations (see attached item 2 in (Leandro Diagrams.doc) Resolution: see below Revised Text: Agreed. Add Operation as a valid BaseClass item in section 6.2.2.3 to both the CRsynch and CRasynch table definitions Actions taken: October 24, 2002: received issue June 30, 2003: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== This is issue # 5702 <>, <> <>, <>: In my understanding, UML already includes means to represent sync and async invocations (through the arrow shape - e.g. in RTS one can edit the 'Timing' folder in the methods properties). Therefore, I would consider these stereotypes as alternative to the already existing UML notation. Nevertheless, such stereotypes are associated with the UML notion of action (e.g. OSD::Step), what forbids combining them directly with the methods invocations (or operations). To be more exact, I suggest allowing these stereotypes to be associated also with operations (see attached item 2 in (Leandro Diagrams.doc)