Jeff James wrote:
> ... if the system is compex enough or if the use cases have similar functionality
>that can be broken into lower level use cases then do it (I'm not talking about
>breaking it down anywhere near function level though). It makes the development
>easier. Call it "functional decomposition" if you want ....... what's wrong with it?
I like Mr. James' question.
There's an important difference between 1) avoiding a rush to design and
2) pretending that you don't know anything about the domain. Commonly,
the problem domain has its natural hierarchies, which are constraining
on the analysis. There is nothing in the semantics of use cases or use
case diagrams that prevents using a decomposition of use cases, and that
seems like a fine way to interpret the <<include>> stereotype.
-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
*
*************************************************************************
