Issue 6669: UML2 Super/Ports (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: page 168 - isBehavior: Boolean Specifies whether requests arriving at this port are sent to the classifier behavior of this classifier (see "BehavioredClassifier (from BasicBehaviors)" on page 383). Such ports are referred to as behavior port. Any invocation of a behavioral feature targeted at a behavior port will be handled by the instance of the owning classifier itself, rather than by any instances that this classifier may contain. The default value is false. This needs to be backed up by a constraint that ensures that no ownedConnectors may connect to such a Port. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 4, 2003: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: The suggested constraint is incorrect. Consider the situation where a part P of Classifier C is connected to a behavior port of C. This situation would violate the proposed constraint. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== m: "Moore, Alan" To: issues@omg.org Subject: UML2 Super/Ports Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:00:46 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) 03-08-02.pdf page 168 - isBehavior: Boolean Specifies whether requests arriving at this port are sent to the classifier behavior of this classifier (see "BehavioredClassifier (from BasicBehaviors)" on page 383). Such ports are referred to as behavior port. Any invocation of a behavioral feature targeted at a behavior port will be handled by the instance of the owning classifier itself, rather than by any instances that this classifier may contain. The default value is false. This needs to be backed up by a constraint that ensures that no ownedConnectors may connect to such a Port. OMG Issue No: 6669 Title: UML2 Super/Ports Source: ARTISAN Software Tools (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore@artisansw.com) Summary: page 168 - isBehavior: Boolean Specifies whether requests arriving at this port are sent to the classifier behavior of this classifier (see "BehavioredClassifier (from BasicBehaviors)" on page 383). Such ports are referred to as behavior port. Any invocation of a behavioral feature targeted at a behavior port will be handled by the instance of the owning classifier itself, rather than by any instances that this classifier may contain. The default value is false. This needs to be backed up by a constraint that ensures that no ownedConnectors may connect to such a Port. Discussion: The suggested constraint is incorrect. Consider the situation where a part P of Classifier C is connected to a behavior port of C. This situation would violate the proposed constraint. Disposition: Closed, no change From: "Moore, Alan" To: "'Thomas Weigert'" , uml2ftf Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:03:56 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Thomas, On 6669, I'm confused by your discussion, the text in the spec says: "Any invocation of a behavioral feature targeted at a behavior port will be handled by the instance of the owning classifier itself, rather than by any instances that this classifier may contain." and yet the example you quote: "Consider the situation where a part P of Classifier C is connected to a behavior port of C." seems to violate this because it implies that an invocation targeted at a behaviour port of C is targeted at an instance, playing part P, contained in C. The only conclusion I can draw is that P may be connected to the behaviour port of C but may not handle any invocations sent to that port. Can you clarify please? As an aside could you also clarify whether behaviour ports can have required interfaces? Alan. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] Sent: 06 April 2004 05:28 To: uml2ftf Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Dear all, please find attached another installment of issue resolutions for both topics. Th. > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:Thomas.Weigert@motorola.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:45 PM > To: uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Dear all, > > please find attached some proposed issue resolution from common > behavior and > composite structures. > > All the best, Th. > From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "Moore, Alan" , "'Thomas Weigert'" , "uml2ftf" Cc: Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 06:13:39 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal Alan, I am sorry but I don't quite follow your question. Let me try again: In the situation below, let's call the connector between P and the behavior port of C "chan". If a message is sent from P along chan, it will be handled by C, not forwarded to anywhere else even if there are other connectors to that behavior port. Further imagine two parts Q1:C and Q2:D and a connector chan2 between Q2 and the behavior port of Q2 (remember that C is the type of Q1). Any communication send along chan2 from Q2 will be handled by the instance of C that plays the part Q1, rather than by the instance that plays the part of P. Hope this helps, Th. > -----Original Message----- > From: Moore, Alan [mailto:AlanM@artisansw.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 3:04 AM > To: 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Thomas, > > On 6669, I'm confused by your discussion, the text in the spec says: > > "Any invocation of a behavioral feature targeted at a behavior > port will be > handled by the instance of the owning classifier itself, rather > than by any > instances that this classifier may contain." > > and yet the example you quote: > > "Consider the situation where a part P of Classifier C is connected to a > behavior port of C." > > seems to violate this because it implies that an invocation targeted at a > behaviour port of C is targeted at an instance, playing part P, > contained in > C. > > The only conclusion I can draw is that P may be connected to the behaviour > port of C but may not handle any invocations sent to that port. Can you > clarify please? > > As an aside could you also clarify whether behaviour ports can > have required > interfaces? > > Alan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] > Sent: 06 April 2004 05:28 > To: uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Dear all, > > please find attached another installment of issue resolutions for both > topics. > > Th. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:Thomas.Weigert@motorola.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:45 PM > > To: uml2ftf > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > Subject: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > please find attached some proposed issue resolution from common > > behavior and > > composite structures. > > > > All the best, Th. > > From: "Moore, Alan" To: "'Thomas Weigert'" , uml2ftf Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:05:46 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Interesting and I can see that it has a meaning and a use. I have a supplementary question - does the behaviour port of C, let's call it BP, in case 1, have to have a required interface, because P requires features of BP, or a provided interface because C offers features via BP? I assume the latter(provided), although if BP was not a behaviour port then it would be the former (required) - this seems a little odd - imagine if chan was connected to BP via a port, P.P1, rather than directly to P - would the nature of P.P1s interface (required/provided) be affected by whether BP was a behaviour port or not? Alan. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] Sent: 06 April 2004 12:14 To: Moore, Alan; 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Alan, I am sorry but I don't quite follow your question. Let me try again: In the situation below, let's call the connector between P and the behavior port of C "chan". If a message is sent from P along chan, it will be handled by C, not forwarded to anywhere else even if there are other connectors to that behavior port. Further imagine two parts Q1:C and Q2:D and a connector chan2 between Q2 and the behavior port of Q2 (remember that C is the type of Q1). Any communication send along chan2 from Q2 will be handled by the instance of C that plays the part Q1, rather than by the instance that plays the part of P. Hope this helps, Th. > -----Original Message----- > From: Moore, Alan [mailto:AlanM@artisansw.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 3:04 AM > To: 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Thomas, > > On 6669, I'm confused by your discussion, the text in the spec says: > > "Any invocation of a behavioral feature targeted at a behavior > port will be > handled by the instance of the owning classifier itself, rather > than by any > instances that this classifier may contain." > > and yet the example you quote: > > "Consider the situation where a part P of Classifier C is connected to a > behavior port of C." > > seems to violate this because it implies that an invocation targeted at a > behaviour port of C is targeted at an instance, playing part P, > contained in > C. > > The only conclusion I can draw is that P may be connected to the behaviour > port of C but may not handle any invocations sent to that port. Can you > clarify please? > > As an aside could you also clarify whether behaviour ports can > have required > interfaces? > > Alan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] > Sent: 06 April 2004 05:28 > To: uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Dear all, > > please find attached another installment of issue resolutions for both > topics. > > Th. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:Thomas.Weigert@motorola.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:45 PM > > To: uml2ftf > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > Subject: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > please find attached some proposed issue resolution from common > > behavior and > > composite structures. > > > > All the best, Th. > > From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "Moore, Alan" , "'Thomas Weigert'" , "uml2ftf" Cc: Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 07:20:48 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal Actually, in both examples we are dealing with provided interfaces, don't we? A behavior port is just like any other port with respect to its interfaces. But you are raising an interesting enhancement suggestion: Should the behavior port have its interfaces derived from the classifier it is a port on, if it has not been given explicit interfaces? In other words, if we omit the type of the behavior port, should we say that in that case it derives its interfaces from the classifier it is the behavior port of? This appears to be a convenient shortcut, albeit I am not sure how often these situations actually arise (probably most of the time we would limit the interfaces offered at the behavior port?). Bran, do you have any intuitions governing the above? Thanks, Th. > -----Original Message----- > From: Moore, Alan [mailto:AlanM@artisansw.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 7:06 AM > To: 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Interesting and I can see that it has a meaning and a use. I have a > supplementary question - does the behaviour port of C, let's call > it BP, in > case 1, have to have a required interface, because P requires features of > BP, or a provided interface because C offers features via BP? > > I assume the latter(provided), although if BP was not a behaviour > port then > it would be the former (required) - this seems a little odd - imagine if > chan was connected to BP via a port, P.P1, rather than directly > to P - would > the nature of P.P1s interface (required/provided) be affected by > whether BP > was a behaviour port or not? > > Alan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] > Sent: 06 April 2004 12:14 > To: Moore, Alan; 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Alan, > > I am sorry but I don't quite follow your question. Let me try > again: In the > situation below, let's call the connector between P and the > behavior port of > C "chan". If a message is sent from P along chan, it will be handled by C, > not forwarded to anywhere else even if there are other connectors to that > behavior port. > > Further imagine two parts Q1:C and Q2:D and a connector chan2 > between Q2 and > the behavior port of Q2 (remember that C is the type of Q1). Any > communication send along chan2 from Q2 will be handled by the > instance of C > that plays the part Q1, rather than by the instance that plays the part of > P. > > Hope this helps, Th. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Moore, Alan [mailto:AlanM@artisansw.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 3:04 AM > > To: 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > Thomas, > > > > On 6669, I'm confused by your discussion, the text in the spec says: > > > > "Any invocation of a behavioral feature targeted at a behavior > > port will be > > handled by the instance of the owning classifier itself, rather > > than by any > > instances that this classifier may contain." > > > > and yet the example you quote: > > > > "Consider the situation where a part P of Classifier C is connected to a > > behavior port of C." > > > > seems to violate this because it implies that an invocation > targeted at a > > behaviour port of C is targeted at an instance, playing part P, > > contained in > > C. > > > > The only conclusion I can draw is that P may be connected to > the behaviour > > port of C but may not handle any invocations sent to that port. Can you > > clarify please? > > > > As an aside could you also clarify whether behaviour ports can > > have required > > interfaces? > > > > Alan. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] > > Sent: 06 April 2004 05:28 > > To: uml2ftf > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > please find attached another installment of issue resolutions for both > > topics. > > > > Th. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:Thomas.Weigert@motorola.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:45 PM > > > To: uml2ftf > > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > > Subject: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > please find attached some proposed issue resolution from common > > > behavior and > > > composite structures. > > > > > > All the best, Th. > > > To: "Thomas Weigert" Cc: "Moore, Alan" , "'Thomas Weigert'" , "uml2ftf" Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:08:22 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 04/06/2004 09:08:29, Serialize complete at 04/06/2004 09:08:29 I cannot say that I find this shortcut either logical or useful. In the many years I have worked with ports, I have never heard of anyone requesting such a capability. So, I would not want to add something like that hastily. Besides, such an enhancement seems out of scope to me. Cheers, Bran "Thomas Weigert" 04/06/2004 08:20 AM To "Moore, Alan" , "'Thomas Weigert'" , "uml2ftf" cc Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA Subject RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Actually, in both examples we are dealing with provided interfaces, don't we? A behavior port is just like any other port with respect to its interfaces. But you are raising an interesting enhancement suggestion: Should the behavior port have its interfaces derived from the classifier it is a port on, if it has not been given explicit interfaces? In other words, if we omit the type of the behavior port, should we say that in that case it derives its interfaces from the classifier it is the behavior port of? This appears to be a convenient shortcut, albeit I am not sure how often these situations actually arise (probably most of the time we would limit the interfaces offered at the behavior port?). Bran, do you have any intuitions governing the above? Thanks, Th. > -----Original Message----- > From: Moore, Alan [mailto:AlanM@artisansw.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 7:06 AM > To: 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Interesting and I can see that it has a meaning and a use. I have a > supplementary question - does the behaviour port of C, let's call > it BP, in > case 1, have to have a required interface, because P requires features of > BP, or a provided interface because C offers features via BP? > > I assume the latter(provided), although if BP was not a behaviour > port then > it would be the former (required) - this seems a little odd - imagine if > chan was connected to BP via a port, P.P1, rather than directly > to P - would > the nature of P.P1s interface (required/provided) be affected by > whether BP > was a behaviour port or not? > > Alan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] > Sent: 06 April 2004 12:14 > To: Moore, Alan; 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Alan, > > I am sorry but I don't quite follow your question. Let me try > again: In the > situation below, let's call the connector between P and the > behavior port of > C "chan". If a message is sent from P along chan, it will be handled by C, > not forwarded to anywhere else even if there are other connectors to that > behavior port. > > Further imagine two parts Q1:C and Q2:D and a connector chan2 > between Q2 and > the behavior port of Q2 (remember that C is the type of Q1). Any > communication send along chan2 from Q2 will be handled by the > instance of C > that plays the part Q1, rather than by the instance that plays the part of > P. > > Hope this helps, Th. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Moore, Alan [mailto:AlanM@artisansw.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 3:04 AM > > To: 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > Thomas, > > > > On 6669, I'm confused by your discussion, the text in the spec says: > > > > "Any invocation of a behavioral feature targeted at a behavior > > port will be > > handled by the instance of the owning classifier itself, rather > > than by any > > instances that this classifier may contain." > > > > and yet the example you quote: > > > > "Consider the situation where a part P of Classifier C is connected to a > > behavior port of C." > > > > seems to violate this because it implies that an invocation > targeted at a > > behaviour port of C is targeted at an instance, playing part P, > > contained in > > C. > > > > The only conclusion I can draw is that P may be connected to > the behaviour > > port of C but may not handle any invocations sent to that port. Can you > > clarify please? > > > > As an aside could you also clarify whether behaviour ports can > > have required > > interfaces? > > > > Alan. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] > > Sent: 06 April 2004 05:28 > > To: uml2ftf > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > please find attached another installment of issue resolutions for both > > topics. > > > > Th. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:Thomas.Weigert@motorola.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:45 PM > > > To: uml2ftf > > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > > Subject: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > please find attached some proposed issue resolution from common > > > behavior and > > > composite structures. > > > > > > All the best, Th. > > > From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "Branislav Selic" , "Thomas Weigert" Cc: "Moore, Alan" , "'Thomas Weigert'" , "uml2ftf" Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:09:01 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal Bran, thanks. As I said, I was not sure of the usefulness of this enhancement. Just wanted to check. Th. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:08 AM To: Thomas Weigert Cc: Moore, Alan; 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) I cannot say that I find this shortcut either logical or useful. In the many years I have worked with ports, I have never heard of anyone requesting such a capability. So, I would not want to add something like that hastily. Besides, such an enhancement seems out of scope to me. Cheers, Bran "Thomas Weigert" 04/06/2004 08:20 AM To "Moore, Alan" , "'Thomas Weigert'" , "uml2ftf" cc Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA Subject RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) Actually, in both examples we are dealing with provided interfaces, don't we? A behavior port is just like any other port with respect to its interfaces. But you are raising an interesting enhancement suggestion: Should the behavior port have its interfaces derived from the classifier it is a port on, if it has not been given explicit interfaces? In other words, if we omit the type of the behavior port, should we say that in that case it derives its interfaces from the classifier it is the behavior port of? This appears to be a convenient shortcut, albeit I am not sure how often these situations actually arise (probably most of the time we would limit the interfaces offered at the behavior port?). Bran, do you have any intuitions governing the above? Thanks, Th. > -----Original Message----- > From: Moore, Alan [mailto:AlanM@artisansw.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 7:06 AM > To: 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Interesting and I can see that it has a meaning and a use. I have a > supplementary question - does the behaviour port of C, let's call > it BP, in > case 1, have to have a required interface, because P requires features of > BP, or a provided interface because C offers features via BP? > > I assume the latter(provided), although if BP was not a behaviour > port then > it would be the former (required) - this seems a little odd - imagine if > chan was connected to BP via a port, P.P1, rather than directly > to P - would > the nature of P.P1s interface (required/provided) be affected by > whether BP > was a behaviour port or not? > > Alan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] > Sent: 06 April 2004 12:14 > To: Moore, Alan; 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > Alan, > > I am sorry but I don't quite follow your question. Let me try > again: In the > situation below, let's call the connector between P and the > behavior port of > C "chan". If a message is sent from P along chan, it will be handled by C, > not forwarded to anywhere else even if there are other connectors to that > behavior port. > > Further imagine two parts Q1:C and Q2:D and a connector chan2 > between Q2 and > the behavior port of Q2 (remember that C is the type of Q1). Any > communication send along chan2 from Q2 will be handled by the > instance of C > that plays the part Q1, rather than by the instance that plays the part of > P. > > Hope this helps, Th. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Moore, Alan [mailto:AlanM@artisansw.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 3:04 AM > > To: 'Thomas Weigert'; uml2ftf > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > Thomas, > > > > On 6669, I'm confused by your discussion, the text in the spec says: > > > > "Any invocation of a behavioral feature targeted at a behavior > > port will be > > handled by the instance of the owning classifier itself, rather > > than by any > > instances that this classifier may contain." > > > > and yet the example you quote: > > > > "Consider the situation where a part P of Classifier C is connected to a > > behavior port of C." > > > > seems to violate this because it implies that an invocation > targeted at a > > behaviour port of C is targeted at an instance, playing part P, > > contained in > > C. > > > > The only conclusion I can draw is that P may be connected to > the behaviour > > port of C but may not handle any invocations sent to that port. Can you > > clarify please? > > > > As an aside could you also clarify whether behaviour ports can > > have required > > interfaces? > > > > Alan. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] > > Sent: 06 April 2004 05:28 > > To: uml2ftf > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > Subject: RE: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > please find attached another installment of issue resolutions for both > > topics. > > > > Th. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:Thomas.Weigert@motorola.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 11:45 PM > > > To: uml2ftf > > > Cc: bselic@ca.ibm.com > > > Subject: ,cb,,cs, Proposals for ballot 12 (April 14) > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > please find attached some proposed issue resolution from common > > > behavior and > > > composite structures. > > > > > > All the best, Th. > > > From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "Branislav Selic" , Cc: , Subject: RE: Updated ballot 12 -- incorrect disposition of 6669 Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:03:11 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal So sorry for just noticing this now, but the disposition for issue 6669 should be "Closed, no change", rather than "Resolved". This is the disposition I submitted when submitting the resolution. Th. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:23 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; ocl2-ftf@omg.org Subject: Updated ballot 12 Due to a miscommunication between Eran and myself, I incorrectly included two issue resolutions in ballot 12 that were already approved in ballot 11. These are the resolutions to issues 6237 and 6397. Therefore, they have been removed from the ballot. The newer version of the ballot is appended below. Apologies for the confusion, Bran