Issue 6379: Visibility of a Package (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Unicom Systems (Mr. Lou Varveris, lou.varveris(at)unicomsi.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Under notation (top of page 100), says that “The visibility of a package element may be indicated by preceding the name of the element by a visibility symbol (‘+’ for public and ‘-’ for private).” This statement does not mention protected () or package (~) visibility; only public and private. Cross Reference: On page 31 of Adopted Superstructure spec, figure 6, the VisibilityKind enumeration class has attributes public, private, protected Resolution: see above Revised Text: Actions taken: October 22, 2003: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: Discussion: The issue correctly summarizes the state of affairs in the UML2 Superstructure FAS and UML2 Infrastructure FAS documents. The existing text is in fact correct because Constraint [1] for Package requires that package elements with non-empty visibility have either public or private visibility, effectively excluding protected and package visibilities. To improve the clarity of the text on this matter, the following text additions are suggested: 1. Add the sentence "Package elements with defined visibility may not have protected or package visibility." to the end of the last paragraph in the Notation subsection, page 101, of Section 7.13.1 Package in the UML2 Superstructure FAS (ptc/03-08-02). 2. Add the sentence "Package elements with defined visibility may not have protected or package visibility." to the end of the last paragraph in the Notation subsection, page 154, of Section 11.8.2 Package in the UML2 Infrastructure FAS (ptc/03-09-15). Disposition: Resolved End of Annotations:===== ubject: Issue with UML 2 Superstructure Spec Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:17:48 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue with UML 2 Superstructure Spec Thread-Index: AcOYr6aqIQ3UST4LTmWCL+1LGaY24Q== From: "Lou Varveris" To: Hi Juergen, Here is an issue that I don't believe has been reported yet in the UML Superstructure Specification: Title: Visibility of a Package Source: Lou Varveris, Popkin Software Summary: Under notation (top of page 100), says that “The visibility of a package element may be indicated by preceding the name of the element by a visibility symbol (‘+’ for public and ‘-’ for private).” This statement does not mention protected () or package (~) visibility; only public and private. Cross Reference: On page 31 of Adopted Superstructure spec, figure 6, the VisibilityKind enumeration class has attributes public, private, protected, and package. Lou Varveris Subject: ,cl, Proposed resolution shared issue 6379 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:47:21 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: ,cl, Proposed resolution shared issue 6379 Thread-Index: AcROYvUwXZ7PsEdvRwqpi/Ik+5QvLA== From: "Tolbert, Doug M" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jun 2004 20:47:21.0628 (UTC) FILETIME=[F62025C0:01C44E62] A proposed resolution for shared issue 6379 can be found in the attached Word document. Doug <> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. UML2 Shared Issue 6379 Resolution.doc OMG Issue No: 6379 Title: Visibility of a Package Source: Popkin Software (Mr. Lou Varveris, louv@popkin.com ) Summary: Under notation (top of page 100), says that .The visibility of a package element may be indicated by preceding the name of the element by a visibility symbol (.+. for public and .-. for private).. This statement does not mention protected () or package (~) visibility; only public and private. Cross Reference: On page 31 of Adopted Superstructure spec, figure 6, the VisibilityKind enumeration class has attributes public, private, protected Discussion: The issue correctly summarizes the state of affairs in the UML2 Superstructure FAS and UML2 Infrastructure FAS documents. The existing text is in fact correct because Constraint [1] for Package requires that package elements with non-empty visibility have either public or private visibility, effectively excluding protected and package visibilities. To improve the clarity of the text on this matter, the following text additions are suggested: Add the sentence "Package elements with defined visibility may not have protected or package visibility." to the end of the last paragraph in the Notation subsection, page 101, of Section 7.13.1 Package in the UML2 Superstructure FAS (ptc/03-08-02). Add the sentence "Package elements with defined visibility may not have protected or package visibility." to the end of the last paragraph in the Notation subsection, page 154, of Section 11.8.2 Package in the UML2 Infrastructure FAS (ptc/03-09-15). Figure 6, page 31, section 7.3, of the UML2 Superstructure FAS, and the description of VisibilityKind in section 7.3.6, pages 39-40, show the VisibilityKind enumeration literal values to be public, private, protected, and package. In contrast, the UML2 Infrastructure FAS shows only public and private as legitimate values of the VisibilityKind enumeration (section 9.20.2, page 93); this discrepancy is dealt with by issue #6515, which see for resolution. Disposition: Resolved Popkin Software