Issue 6365: ReadSelfAction with no host (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: Extend ReadSelfAction to return behavior object if there is no host. Resolution: see above Revised Text: Actions taken: October 20, 2003: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: In ReadSelfAction class, Semantics section, replace the first sentence with "For activities that have no other context object, the activity itself is the context object. See behaviors as classes in Common Behavior and discussion of reflective objects in Activity." End of Annotations:===== me: Conrad Bock Company: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Subject: ReadSelfAction with no host OMG Issue No: 6365 Title: ReadSelfAction with no host Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov) Summary: Extend ReadSelfAction to return behavior object if there is no host. Discussion: In ReadSelfAction class, Semantics section, replace the first sentence with "For activities that have no other context object, the activity execution itself is the context object. See behaviors as classes in Common Behavior and discussion of activity executions in Activity." Disposition: Resolved Extend ReadSelfAction to return behavior object if there is no host. To: Cc: "uml2ftf" Subject: Re: ,av,,ac, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 16:13:36 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 04/05/2004 16:13:37, Serialize complete at 04/05/2004 16:13:37 Hi Conrad, Here is some feedback on your proposed resolutions for ballot 12: Concerning issues 7113, 7114, 7116, and 7120: you are proposing to handle all of these distinct issues as part of the resolution to issue 6090. However, since you have not yet submitted a resolution to 6090, it seems inappropriate to close these off as duplicates of 6090 -- at least until the resolution to 6090 is provided. What happens, for instance, if the resolution to 6090 is rejected? In that case, these issues will mistakenly appear as if they have been handled. Therefore, I suggest that, unless you plan to submit the resolution to 6090 in the same ballot, that you hold these off until that happens. Furthermore, they should be closed not as "duplicates", since they are not, but as "resolved" with a note that they have been resolved as part of the resolution to issue 6090. Concerning the resolution to 6365 in which you recommend that the activity execution itself is the context object for the ReadSelfAction: I seem to recall that there was some controversy about this in the U2P. But, even if we agree to this solution, it sounds as if this requires some additional explanation about the notion of 'activity execution object". If this is the only mention of such a beast, it will undoubtedly raise further questions. This should have an explanation in some general semantics subsection of the activities chapter, where such things are discussed. (It may already exist - I haven't checked. If so, ignore this.) Thanks, Bran Selic Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph. (613) 591-7915 fax (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com "Conrad Bock" 03/28/2004 12:42 PM Please respond to conrad.bock To "uml2ftf" cc Subject ,av,,ac, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Activators, Here are proposals in activities/actions for ballot 12 (April 14). Conrad[attachment "issueresolution-cb-5.doc" deleted by Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM] Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "uml2ftf" Subject: RE: ,av,,ac, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:14:09 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal Bran, > Concerning issues 7113, 7114, 7116, and 7120: you are proposing > to handle all of these distinct issues as part of the resolution > to issue 6090. Issue 6090 is written very generally, referring to "the text". All text about pin multiplicity must be addressed, including the parts referred to above. The duplicate issues propose solutions to the inconsistency stated in 6090, and these solutions may not be the ones adopted. See attached update with a rewording to clarify. > Concerning the resolution to 6365 in which you recommend that the > activity execution itself is the context object for the > ReadSelfAction: I seem to recall that there was some controversy > about this in the U2P. There was, but it was agreed in the end. > But, even if we agree to this solution, it sounds as if this requires > some additional explanation about the notion of 'activity execution > object". If this is the only mention of such a beast, it will > undoubtedly raise further questions. It is referred to as a "reflective object" in the semantics of activity. See if the attached version is better. If there is a need to clarify behavior-as-class, etc, it can be taken as a separate issue. Conrad issueresolution-cb-51.doc