Sorry - I was not very clear on the original reply. Rose (a few versions
ago now) could not draw the right relationships between use cases for
<<include>> and <<extend>>. The Rose workaround to use the unidirectional
association to represent this dependency. I don't think we ever implied
that the unidirectional association was the right UML relationship to draw
in that case.
This is no longer needed in Rose 2000e or Rose2001 - as it does the right
thing now and you can draw the right dependency relationship.
Jason makes a good point that the <<include>> and <<extend>> relationships
should be used with great care! Note that <<extend>> does not denote
specialisation, the UML generalisation relationship is a valid and useful
relationship between use cases for this concepts, and it is supported in
Rose.
regards
anthony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Gorman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 02 January 2001 15:11
> To: Prabhusivakumar
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: (ROSE)Association and Dependency in UseCases
>
>
>
> Who knows? <<includes>> denotes aggregation of use cases (one
> use case is
> part of another use case) and <<extends>> denotes
> specialisation (one use
> case is a special case of another). You have to be very
> careful how you use
> these, in much the same way as you must be with classes.
> Having said that,
> try building a class model with just loose dependancies and
> no associations!
>
> Jason Gorman
> http://www.xml-objects.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Prabhusivakumar
> Sent: 02 January 2001 08:47
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: (ROSE)Association and Dependency in UseCases
>
>
>
> Hi,
> Rational tells to use "Unidirectional Association" with stereo type as
> <<includes>> or <<extends>> between usecases.
> But as per Booch this is a "dependency". I also agree with
> Booch because if
> there is a change in the included usecase the main usecase is
> bound to get
> affected.
> But why still Rational recommends the use of Unidirectional
> Association??
>
> Prabhu
> **************************************************************
> **********
> * 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
> *
> **************************************************************
> ***********
>
************************************************************************
* 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
*
*************************************************************************
