Issue 8936: event parameters (uml2-rtf) Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Event was able to own set of parameters in UML 1.4 . "Any parameter values associated with the current event are available to all actions directly caused by that event (transition actions, entry actions, etc.)." In UML 2.0 Parameters are removed from Event metaclass, but in chapter "Changes from UML 1.x" there is no comment about that ("None"). Could you please comment how Parameters from UML 1.4 Event should be mapped into UML 2.0 model? I see a big problem, because some MDA tools (like AndroMDA) are based on information stored in Event parameters, hundreds of users have lot of projects, they can't be lost on migration. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 21, 2005: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: Subject: event parameters Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:46:39 +0300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Hello All, Event was able to own set of parameters in UML 1.4 . "Any parameter values associated with the current event are available to all actions directly caused by that event (transition actions, entry actions, etc.)." In UML 2.0 Parameters are removed from Event metaclass, but in chapter "Changes from UML 1.x" there is no comment about that ("None"). Could you please comment how Parameters from UML 1.4 Event should be mapped into UML 2.0 model? I see a big problem, because some MDA tools (like AndroMDA) are based on information stored in Event parameters, hundreds of users have lot of projects, they can't be lost on migration. Thanks in advance. -- 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 To: "Nerijus Jankevicius" Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: event parameters X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:04:49 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 07/21/2005 14:04:50, Serialize complete at 07/21/2005 14:04:50 Nerijus, Please note that an Event in UML 2 is the specification of a type of event rather than an event occurrence. In other words, an Event is analogous to a class rather than an instance. [Note that this was true in 1.x as well, although the sentence that you cite from the 1.4 spec is misleading since it talks about "values" rather than about "parameters" -- a case of sloppy language usage.] The parameters of an Event are obtained from the associated Signal (for SignalEvents), Operation (for CallEvents), "when" expression (for TimeEvents), or change expression (for ChangeEvents). Again, this is how to determine list of parameters of events, not their values. Note that, in most cases, it is not necessary to model Events explicitly, since they are implied by related model elements, such as Operations or Receptions. For instance, every operation implies a CallEvent that corresponds to that operation. (The corresponding CallEvent might be automatically generated by the tool, for example.) In fact, if a model contained both a specification of an Operation and an Event had a corresponding set of Parameters associated with it, these two specs would have to be matched and maintained manually to stay in sync. (For this reason, at one time, it was suggested to completely eliminate the explicit concept of Event from the metamodel. However, the FTF had a change of minds towards the end -- talk to Joaquin Miller for details if you are interested.) The actual values for case of specific occurrences can be obtained in a number of different ways depending on the application model. If there is an appropriate actions model, one way is to look at the instances of actions that can result in these event occurrences, such as CallOperationAction, and look at the values that are associated with that instance. In cases where a suitable interaction model is provided, it is possible to inspect the arguments of messages corresponding to event occurrences. I guess the only problem is the "None" statement in the "Changes from UML 1.x" section. That should have been updated with the above information. Cheers, Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com "Nerijus Jankevicius" 07/21/2005 12:46 PM To cc Subject event parameters Hello All, Event was able to own set of parameters in UML 1.4 . "Any parameter values associated with the current event are available to all actions directly caused by that event (transition actions, entry actions, etc.)." In UML 2.0 Parameters are removed from Event metaclass, but in chapter "Changes from UML 1.x" there is no comment about that ("None"). Could you please comment how Parameters from UML 1.4 Event should be mapped into UML 2.0 model? I see a big problem, because some MDA tools (like AndroMDA) are based on information stored in Event parameters, hundreds of users have lot of projects, they can't be lost on migration. Thanks in advance. -- 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 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:28:58 +0100 From: Guus Ramackers Organization: Oracle Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Nerijus Jankevicius CC: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: event parameters X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE Nerijus, I believe that in UML2 these parameters are declared as properties on Signal. Thanks, Guus Nerijus Jankevicius wrote: Hello All, Event was able to own set of parameters in UML 1.4 . "Any parameter values associated with the current event are available to all actions directly caused by that event (transition actions, entry actions, etc.)." In UML 2.0 Parameters are removed from Event metaclass, but in chapter "Changes from UML 1.x" there is no comment about that ("None"). Could you please comment how Parameters from UML 1.4 Event should be mapped into UML 2.0 model? I see a big problem, because some MDA tools (like AndroMDA) are based on information stored in Event parameters, hundreds of users have lot of projects, they can't be lost on migration. Thanks in advance. -- 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 -- __________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager J2EE, WS and UML Tools , Oracle JDeveloper Tools group e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP work: +44-(0)1189-245101 Reading RG6 1RA, UK fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=MESA4ohJK+779lDtVDuu/H3cVWNEko4TB2bHpoh1fIY=; b=EvksHdBaU+9rwoWN9SJoEs/aBVBh+n9V/DGvZOZ0HN9rf+a6KhPBVKHEJQnu3UspGzZFfHsZxzHbLfPT1qikyGjYGcAM40jPQwcyoAQfIJnx7AB+6Mgk91n11Gwa2S5a2nY8AzfR5G1ktKc1rQ01zXd8Yez7vo8VLc5vvGDpN0s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=IBl+0RXJWQKwXkv3JPCZaYvsmRqlETu55JgNnRBx0V8RVq3wJw2fJ9GopNM2IsIz4mTBeWKOP8t14vPnlhCuw1VhTcXoMYSjNhpearbJerGB+xW9eprwGhjgoutAaJmTsOMLLf2wPnmMXfulChn8mVq/ij+3JBC62udXe5yacCk= Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:00:33 -0500 From: "Bran Selic" To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Draft Ballot #3 My rather belated comments on the resolutions proposed on draft ballot 3, which becomes official tonight -- less the issues that have been postponed for later ballots. The latter are issues against which someone in the RTF raised objections. We will need to discuss these further. I will publish this list of resolutions removed from the draft ballot later tonight when I release the ballot for official vote. However, I want to raise one additional concern with an issue that, so far, has not been under debate: Issue 8936: the submitter has raised a concern that the section "Changes from UML 1.x" does not identify properly that there have been changes in the area of Event definitions. The proposed resolution argues that the information is still there (and even in a more appropriate form) -- which I agree with. Even so, however, the section "Changes from UML 1.x" should include information about the nature of the change and what may need to be done to convert UML 1.x models to the new way of modeling event parameters. In addition, I have to confess that due to my editing error, the resolution provided by Oystein to issue 10974 got mangled in the draft ballot, so that it could not be properly reviewed (I am surprised no one noticed this screw up -- it may mean that RTF members are not doing a particularly thorough job). So, I will include the proposed resolution in draft of ballot #4 -- which currently consists of only 2 resolutions. Regards...Bran On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Bran Selic wrote: Attached, please find the first draft of ballot 3, due to become official in 2 weeks. So, you have 2 weeks to review these proposed resolutions and raise objections to them. Thanks to Thomas in particular, we have an exceptionally large batch of proposed resolutions. It will take a fair amount of time to review them all and some of them are likely to be critical and contentious, so please do not leave your review until the very end. Once a resolution has been adopted, there is no real way of getting back. I apologize for the irregular format for many of the resolutions, but that is how I got them (you will be doing me a great favour in the future, if you used the official format for your resolution proposals -- this is why there is a blank issue resolution page at the end of the draft ballot). I will clean them up for the official ballot (a lot of tedious work), but I believe that this is still sufficient for you to understand what is being proposed. Please raise any concerns you have via e-mail. Regards...Bran Selic