Issue 6231: UML 2 Super/pg.379/anyTrigger clarifications (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: pg. 379: AnyTrigger: It is obviously illegal to have 2 anyTriggers in the same state (but the specification should say that, which it doesn't). What about multiple anyTriggers in nested states? The specification is silent on this point. It should probably be allowed with the most specific state taking precedence. This is a useful situation. Need to define it in any case. Resolution: see above Revised Text: Actions taken: September 7, 2003: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: The text on AnyTrigger quoted above is incorrect in that it implies that the AnyTrigger is on a state. In fact, the trigger is on a transition, and the scenario of multiple triggers does not arise. Change the Semantics section for AnyTrigger on p.379, ptc/03-08-02 to: An AnyTrigger on a transition specifies that this transition is triggered for all applicable message triggers except for those specified explicitly on other transitions having the same vertex as a source. Further, the text in the Description section duplicates the text in the semantics. Change the Description section for AnyTrigger to: An AnyTrigger causes a transition to be triggered by any message trigger which is not explicitly referenced in another transition from the same vertex. End of Annotations:===== To: issues@omg.org Subject: UML 2 Super/pg.379/anyTrigger clarifications X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 From: Branislav Selic Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:08:58 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 09/07/2003 10:09:00, Serialize complete at 09/07/2003 10:09:00 pg. 379: AnyTrigger: It is obviously illegal to have 2 anyTriggers in the same state (but the specification should say that, which it doesn't). What about multiple anyTriggers in nested states? The specification is silent on this point. It should probably be allowed with the most specific state taking precedence. This is a useful situation. Need to define it in any case. Bran Selic IBM Software Group -- Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph. (613) 591-7915 fax (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: ,cs cb, More Ballot 14 proposed resolutions, 6231 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:35:19 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Thomas, The resolution to 6231 (UML 2 Super/pg.379/anyTrigger clarifications) doesn't seem to answer the first sentence of the issue. What happens if there are two transitions from the same state that have an anyTrigger for a trigger? The proposed text implies that two transitions are taken from the same state if none of the non-anyTrigger transitions are chosen: An AnyTrigger on a transition specifies that this transition is triggered for all applicable message triggers except for those specified explicitly on other transitions having the same vertex as a source. Conrad From: "Thomas Weigert" To: , Subject: RE: ,cs cb, More Ballot 14 proposed resolutions, 6231 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:08:10 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Thanks. I shall add a clarifying sentence. Th. > -----Original Message----- > From: Conrad Bock [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:35 PM > To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: ,cs cb, More Ballot 14 proposed resolutions, 6231 > > > Thomas, > > The resolution to 6231 (UML 2 Super/pg.379/anyTrigger clarifications) > doesn't seem to answer the first sentence of the issue. What happens if > there are two transitions from the same state that have an anyTrigger > for a trigger? The proposed text implies that two transitions are taken > from the same state if none of the non-anyTrigger transitions are > chosen: > > An AnyTrigger on a transition specifies that this transition is > triggered for all applicable message triggers except for those > specified explicitly on other transitions having the same vertex as a > source. > > Conrad From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "Thomas Weigert" , , Subject: RE: ,cs cb, More Ballot 14 proposed resolutions, 6231 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:09:30 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) This situation is already covered by the standard rules of transitions, see page 501. A triggering event being present only enables these transitions (assuming they are from an active state). Being enabled is necessary, but not sufficient for the firing of the transition. Th. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Conrad Bock [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:35 PM > > To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org > > Subject: RE: ,cs cb, More Ballot 14 proposed resolutions, 6231 > > > > > > Thomas, > > > > The resolution to 6231 (UML 2 Super/pg.379/anyTrigger clarifications) > > doesn't seem to answer the first sentence of the issue. What happens if > > there are two transitions from the same state that have an anyTrigger > > for a trigger? The proposed text implies that two transitions are taken > > from the same state if none of the non-anyTrigger transitions are > > chosen: > > > > An AnyTrigger on a transition specifies that this transition is > > triggered for all applicable message triggers except for those > > specified explicitly on other transitions having the same vertex as a > > source. > > > > Conrad OMG Issue No: 6231 Title: UML 2 Super/pg.379/anyTrigger clarifications Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Bran Selic, bselic@ca.ibm.com) Summary: pg. 379: AnyTrigger: It is obviously illegal to have 2 anyTriggers in the same state (but the specification should say that, which it doesn't). What about multiple anyTriggers in nested states? The specification is silent on this point. It should probably be allowed with the most specific state taking precedence. This is a useful situation. Need to define it in any case. Discussion: The text on AnyTrigger quoted above is incorrect in that it implies that the AnyTrigger is on a state. In fact, the trigger is on a transition, and the scenario of multiple triggers does not arise. Change the Semantics section for AnyTrigger on p.379, ptc/03-08-02 to: An AnyTrigger on a transition specifies that this transition is triggered for all applicable message triggers except for those specified explicitly on other transitions having the same vertex as a source. Further, the text in the Description section duplicates the text in the semantics. Change the Description section for AnyTrigger to: An AnyTrigger causes a transition to be triggered by any message trigger which is not explicitly referenced in another transition from the same vertex. Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 6231 Title: UML 2 Super/pg.379/anyTrigger clarifications Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Bran Selic, bselic@ca.ibm.com) Summary: pg. 379: AnyTrigger: It is obviously illegal to have 2 anyTriggers in the same state (but the specification should say that, which it doesn't). What about multiple anyTriggers in nested states? The specification is silent on this point. It should probably be allowed with the most specific state taking precedence. This is a useful situation. Need to define it in any case. Discussion: The text on AnyTrigger quoted above is incorrect in that it implies that the AnyTrigger is on a state. In fact, the trigger is on a transition, and the scenario of multiple triggers does not arise. Change the Semantics section for AnyTrigger on p.379, ptc/03-08-02 to: An AnyTrigger on a transition specifies that this transition is triggered for all applicable message triggers except for those specified explicitly on other transitions having the same vertex as a source. Further, the text in the Description section duplicates the text in the semantics. Change the Description section for AnyTrigger to: An AnyTrigger causes a transition to be triggered by any message trigger which is not explicitly referenced in another transition from the same vertex. Disposition: Resolved