Issue 8245: Section: 12.3.38 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: I may be all wet (after all it is a Monday morning and raining here) but I think fig. 265 needs to be redrawn. The notation between the BuildComponent and InstallComponent activites is different than the notation between the InstallComponent and DeliverApplication activities yet the flow is basically the same. To agree with the left side of the flow between BuildComponent and InstallComponent activities, there should be a fork after the InstallComponent activity with an edge going to DeliverApplication activity and an edge going to a decisionNode. The decisionNode should have two edges exiting it. One labeled [more components to be installed] and going back to the InstallComponent activity; a second labeled [no more components to be installed] going to a Flow final node. The edge and the [no more components to be installed] label need to be removed from the edge going from the decisionNode to the DeliverApplication activity. Out of curiosity, why was a fork notation used and not the decisionNode with three control flow edges leading from it? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 7, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: After the Build Component action has completed, the activity can in proceed to install the component, and check to see if any further components need to be built. If there are no more components to build, then the forked parallel flow terminates, but the activity continues with the installation of any previously built components. If there are additional components to build, they are built with the Build Component action and then sent to be installed. The reason for a fork here is to allow additional components to be built while previously built components are installed. A fork cannot be included after the Install Component action as this would result in the application being delivered after its first component was installed. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 07 Feb 2005 12:01:30 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 12.3.38 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 403 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description I may be all wet (after all it is a Monday morning and raining here) but I think fig. 265 needs to be redrawn. The notation between the BuildComponent and InstallComponent activites is different than the notation between the InstallComponent and DeliverApplication activities yet the flow is basically the same. To agree with the left side of the flow between BuildComponent and InstallComponent activities, there should be a fork after the InstallComponent activity with an edge going to DeliverApplication activity and an edge going to a decisionNode. The decisionNode should have two edges exiting it. One labeled [more components to be installed] and going back to the InstallComponent activity; a second labeled [no more components to be installed] going to a Flow final node. The edge and the [no more components to be installed] label need to be removed from the edge going from the decisionNode to the DeliverApplication activity. Out of curiosity, why was a fork notation used and not the decisionNode with three control flow edges leading from it?