Issue 7431: Composite structures/contradictory constraint on connector (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Softeam (Mr. Philippe Desfray, phd(at)softeam.fr) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: We read as a constraint for connector (composite structure) [2] If a connector is attached to a connectable element which has required interfaces, then the connectable elements attached to the other ends must realize interfaces that are compatible with these required interfaces. And Commponents::Connector provides the following constraint: [1] A delegation connector must only be defined between used Interfaces or Ports of the same kind, e.g. between two provided Ports or between two required Ports. Both are in contradiction. Proposed correction: Ditch CompositeStructure::Connector constraint [2] Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 2, 2004: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== eply-To: From: "Desfray" To: Subject: Subject: UML2 super/Composite structures/contradictory constraint on connector Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:54:55 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) We read as a constraint for connector (composite structure) [2] If a connector is attached to a connectable element which has required interfaces, then the connectable elements attached to the other ends must realize interfaces that are compatible with these required interfaces. And Commponents::Connector provides the following constraint: [1] A delegation connector must only be defined between used Interfaces or Ports of the same kind, e.g. between two provided Ports or between two required Ports. Both are in contradiction. Proposed correction: Ditch CompositeStructure::Connector constraint [2] ==================================== Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM Tel: (33) 01 53968400 Fax: (33) 01 53968401 144 Av. des champs Elysées 75008 PARIS www.softeam.com From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "Branislav Selic" , , Subject: RE: Ballot 24 draft Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:35:54 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Comments: 6171: Delete last sentence of replacement text. It is not at all clear whether the mentioned rules are in scope of UML or not. Certainly we have declared those to be a semantic variation point in other places. I would suggest to move the text into the semantic variation point section and replace the last sentence by "Such rules constitute semantic variation points." 6988: Please make sure you use the new terminology introduced by Jim R. 7392: This would be resolved by the resolution to the Nick's event issue I sent in tonight. I would suggest to combine those. 7417: Just FYI. The text that the submitter complains about was a note that I had written to myself using the Frame conditional text feature. Somehow it ended up in the spec but was later removed, as it should have been. The resolution is correct. 7431: This resolution should be deleted. The issue references an outdated version of the spec. If the adopted resolution to issue 7122 were considered, much of the tension is gone: Constraint [2], as it is in place due to issue 7122, states that "The connectable elements attached to the ends of a connector must be compatible." Constraint [1], for a subtype of connector, states that the connectable elements must have the same or compatible interfaces. So the only conflict is that the phrasing in Components has not been updated to move the compatibility relation to the connectable elements and it still speaks of compatible interfaces. I think the bigger issue is that the constraint [1] mentions a connector between interfaces, which is nonsense. So what we should do is bring the constraint [1] in line with constraint [2] terminology, as compatibility between interfaces is not any more defined. 7434: There are two presentation options discussed under collaboration occurrence. The option quoted "point at the owning classifier" is not relevant to the problem; it refers to the situation where a collaboration represents an operation. But actually, the text of the presentation option has become so confusing due to the repeated changes to the keywords that it makes little sense. A clearer wording is required. In addition, it should be made clear which direction the arrow points. I would defer this issue, as the proposed solution does not really address the problem. 7438: The choice of word "connector" in this resolution is not good, as "Connector" is the name of a model element. 7575: Make sure that the bookmark references are correct in the final version. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 7:54 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 24 draft Attached, please find the draft of ballot 24. There are 66 resolutions in this one -- good work! Reminder: voting on this ballot will commence on Friday at 6 pm EDT. If you have any complaints or suggestions, please submit them by tomorrow noon EDT. Regards, Bran www.objecteering.com