I think both sides have valid points, BUT in the real world, not collegial,
Use Cases should remain simple and easy to put togather. A analyst or
developer doesn't want to spend a lot of time duplicating behavior from one
flow to another, in the real world we don't always have the time for that.
The best and logical way, is that a Basic Flow in a Use Case should be the
complete path from begining to end, but the alternalte flows be short simple
flows that contain behavior that is not basic or some exeption to it. In
the Basic Flow where exceptional behavior or special behavior may be needed,
the use of Extends and Uses (Invokes and Precedes) it inserted for clarity.
This carries on to scenarios (Interaction Diagrams), the Basic Flow is now
the main Scenario which is diagramed out completely with notes leading to
alternate flows (alternate scenarios)where applicatable.
Also, I like all the books about Use Cases out there, each on has its merits
but after you have used Use Cases in the real world, you realize that most
books loses its realization to the real world. It is my belief that
instructors and professors lose touch with the real world.
Well I will get off my soap box now. thanks
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric D. Tarkington
To: ROSE_FORUM
Sent: 11/27/00 11:03 PM
Subject: (ROSE) Bar Bet #1
There is a collegial dispute between some of the instructors here at
Seneca. I won't tell you which side I'm on, but your comments would be
welcome. You can rest assured that I will pass them on -- if they
support me, of course.
Position A: One instructor says that you can't split a use case into
scenarios that cover less than a *complete* path through the FOE. This
agrees with Quatrani (start of chapter 5, VISUAL MODELLING), but may
produce long, awkward scenarios, and long, wide sequence diagrams.
Position B: The other says that's not good software practice, and
scenarios need to capture a small, natural unit of work in the FOE.
This contradicts Quatrani, but produces shorter scenarios with easier
sequence diagrams. One argument against is that the decomposition into
smaller scenarios may be confusing.
So, whadaya say? Do you favor position A or position B? Why?
-Eric
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
************************************************************************
*
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
