Okay, I'll continue the enforcement but manage it elsewhere. I simply
had no view of my own as I'm not so familiar with usage of this
diagram.

Should I enforce as it tries to at the moment or should I also enforce
so that there is never zero composite states.

e.g. On creation of the composite state automatically create 2 inner
composite states and refuse to delete inner composite states if there
are only 2 left (or an attempt to do so deletes the parent). Which is
best or still allow zero?

Bob.


2008/5/2 Michiel van der Wulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Bob,
>
>
>
> > The well formedness rule - "There have to be at least two composite
> > substates in a concurrent composite state" - seems to be enforced by
> > the application rather then by crtics.
> >
>
>  Yes, the WFR for 2 regions in a concurrent state is enforced.
>
>  This to make it transparent for the user. The user is kept unaware of the
> regions as separate entities in the UML model.
>  BTW: Otherwise it would be very hard to implement: How would ArgoUML have
> to react if there were only one? Think about the common user's usecase of
> drawing regions.
>
>  We (the creator of concurrent states and me) decided on this strategy to
> reach a solution that is user-friendly (and implementable).
>
>
>
> > It surprised my to find that the button to create a new Concurrent
> > Region on a Composite State actually creates 2 if there are currently
> > zero.
> >
>
>  Yes, that is a consequence of this line of thought.
>
>
>
> > So should I make my job easier by removing the enforcement of this
> > rule or should I make this enforcement better by managing it in the
> > model subsystem?
> >
>
>  Please, improve this enforcement.
>  This one is for usability.
>
>
>
> > The enforcement doesn't fully enforce as it currently allows zero
> > composites, is that good or bad? Possibly it's a balance between
> > enforcement and critics?
> >
>
>  Err.. that must be a bug. How did you do that?
>  Please note that the former checkmark for concurrency on the composite
> state proppanel is intentionally removed!
>
>  I see some simularity with swimlanes in an activity diagram, but there the
> pool is not drawn first (and independently), so it differs.
>
>  Regards,
>  Michiel
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Tarling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  To: <[email protected]>
>  Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 3:03 AM
>  Subject: [argouml-dev] There have to be at least two composite substates in
> a concurrent composite state.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > The well formedness rule - "There have to be at least two composite
> > substates in a concurrent composite state" - seems to be enforced by
> > the application rather then by crtics.
> >
> > As you probably know its my opinion that we should seek some balance
> > to enforce or hint different rules where it really aids the user to
> > get the design right first time.
> >
> > So here is one to discuss.
> >
> > It surprised my to find that the button to create a new Concurrent
> > Region on a Composite State actually creates 2 if there are currently
> > zero.
> >
> > There is also the nasty hack to delete the remaining one if we get
> > down to just one (that probably won't work under all circumstances).
> >
> > So should I make my job easier by removing the enforcement of this
> > rule or should I make this enforcement better by managing it in the
> > model subsystem?
> >
> > The enforcement doesn't fully enforce as it currently allows zero
> > composites, is that good or bad? Possibly it's a balance between
> > enforcement and critics?
> >
> > Bob.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG.
> > Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1409 - Release Date: 1/05/2008
> 8:39
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to