Issue 8757: 1. Deployment (uml2-rtf) Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: 1. Deployment > What is client and what is supplier for this relationship? > Why DeploymentTARGET has word "target" in name but subsets "source" > for Dependency? The meaning of "client" and "supplier" in Dependency is pretty arbitrary and depends on one's point of view. I don't recall the reasoning behind this particular choice, but it may have to do with the direction of the arrow more than anything else. Guus probably wanted the arrow to go from the artifact to the node because it looked more natural to him. Perhaps Guus can explain -- I've copied him on this reply. However, there is definitely a bug here since "client" and "supplier" are not derived unions, hence, they cannot be subset as shown in figure 126. This may have already been raised as an issue. I'll have to check. I suggest that you raise a formal issue in any case. > And why notation examples are from Artifact to Node (arrow near > Node, but Node is "client" in model). Ostensibly, this is explained by what I wrote above. However, there seems to be a deeper problem here: note that Dependency::supplier and Dependency::client are not specializations of DirectedRelationship::target and DirectedRelationship::source respectively, as I would have expected (otherwise it does not seem to make sense to subclass DirectedRelationship at all). I do not understand why this is so, it does not seem to make sense. It may have to do with the constraints that Dependency did not want to impose on supplier and client, but I am not sure. This needs further study and, likely, an issue to be raised. > "Location" attribute of Deployment should be DeploymentTarget, not Node. You are correct. Please raise an official issue on this through issues@omg.org Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 3, 2005: received issue Discussion: Due to lack of time, the RTF/FTF agrees that the following are problems that need fixing, but decided to defer their resolution to a future RTF working on this specification. End of Annotations:===== m: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: "Juergen Boldt" Subject: Fw: some UML2 issues Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:47:17 +0300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.84, clamav-milter version 0.84e on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean Hello Juergen, Please register issues (see email below). Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Branislav Selic To: Nerijus Jankevicius Cc: guus.ramackers@oracle.com ; oysteinh@ifi.uio.no ; Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:59 PM Subject: Re: some UML2 issues Hello Nerijus, (Note to Guus, Oystein, and Doug: your input is sought in some of my answers below) In reply to your e-mail: > 1. Deployment > What is client and what is supplier for this relationship? > Why DeploymentTARGET has word "target" in name but subsets "source" > for Dependency? The meaning of "client" and "supplier" in Dependency is pretty arbitrary and depends on one's point of view. I don't recall the reasoning behind this particular choice, but it may have to do with the direction of the arrow more than anything else. Guus probably wanted the arrow to go from the artifact to the node because it looked more natural to him. Perhaps Guus can explain -- I've copied him on this reply. However, there is definitely a bug here since "client" and "supplier" are not derived unions, hence, they cannot be subset as shown in figure 126. This may have already been raised as an issue. I'll have to check. I suggest that you raise a formal issue in any case. > And why notation examples are from Artifact to Node (arrow near > Node, but Node is "client" in model). Ostensibly, this is explained by what I wrote above. However, there seems to be a deeper problem here: note that Dependency::supplier and Dependency::client are not specializations of DirectedRelationship::target and DirectedRelationship::source respectively, as I would have expected (otherwise it does not seem to make sense to subclass DirectedRelationship at all). I do not understand why this is so, it does not seem to make sense. It may have to do with the constraints that Dependency did not want to impose on supplier and client, but I am not sure. This needs further study and, likely, an issue to be raised. > "Location" attribute of Deployment should be DeploymentTarget, not Node. You are correct. Please raise an official issue on this through issues@omg.org