Yes, I'm talking about navigating these relationships in a SoDA template.
Walter
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Kesterton, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Jänner 2001 16:08
An: Smoly Walter MET
Betreff: RE: (ROSE) Bar Bet #2
Hi Walter
Not sure why this didn't work in 2000e - will try it in the latest version
of Rose and SoDA - in Suite v2001. Are you talking about navigating these
relationships in your SoDA template??
anthony
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smoly Walter MET [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 25 January 2001 14:17
> To: 'Kesterton, Anthony'; Rose Forum (E-Mail)
> Subject: AW: (ROSE) Bar Bet #2
>
>
> Hi,
> Ok, we can use dependencies instead of associations in Rose,
> but are we also able to include them in a SoDA report ?
> With version Rose 2000e it was not possible!
>
> Kind regards
> Walter
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Kesterton, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 25. Jänner 2001 10:59
> An: Eric D. Tarkington
> Cc: ROSE_FORUM
> Betreff: RE: (ROSE) Bar Bet #2
>
>
>
> Hi Eric
>
> As Todd points out - the comments in Terry's (she is called
> TQ most of the
> time around here) books are because Rose did not support the correct
> relationships for uses/extends, and later include/extend. TQ
> was describing
> the workarounds in those releases (Rose98 and Rose2000).
>
> This was fixed in Rose 2000e (or it could have been Rose
> 2000). Remember
> Rose releases went Rose98, Rose98i, Rose98i SP1, Rose 2000,
> Rose 2000e and
> the current release is Rose2001.
>
> The switch from uses/extends to include/extend mirrored the
> changes in UML.
> UML 1.3 switch the terms from <<uses>> to <<include>> partly
> because the
> term "include" gave a much better description of the purpose of the
> relationship - the term "uses" had created much confusion and
> there was a
> lot of abuse of this kind of relationship. The name change
> from <<extends>>
> to <<extend>> was a little more subtle - and also mirror a
> slight change in
> the meaning ("a little more subtle" means I can't remember
> why this happened
> :-))
>
> The correct UML 1.3 *and* now Rose relationships for <<include>> and
> <<extend>> are stereotyped dependency relationships. Not
> associations and
> not generalisations.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> regards
>
> anthony
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric D. Tarkington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 25 January 2001 09:08
> > Cc: ROSE_FORUM
> > Subject: Re: (ROSE) Bar Bet #2
> >
> >
> >
> > "Dunnavant, Todd" wrote:
> > >
> > > The 1998 comments by Terry were due to the fact that Rose
> > 98 didn't support
> > > the correct UML symbols between use cases, so we had to
> > kludge things.
> > > "Correct" UML represents include/extend using stereotyped
> dependency
> > > relations. Rose 2001 supports this notation.
> > >
> > > Todd Dunnavant
> > > Rational Software Corporation
> >
> > There are actually two bar bets here. In use case diagrams:
> > 1. Uses/extends is the same as the newer include/extend.
> > 2. Unidirectional association is the relationship to which these
> > stereotypes should apply.
> >
> > I'm not trying to pin anything on Terry Quatrani -- she's
> my favorite
> > author on the UML.
> >
> > Quatrani actually uses generalization with uses/extends for
> > Rose 98, and
> > the unidirectional association with includes/extends for Rose
> > 2000. Did
> > 2000 support dependency between use cases?
> >
> > Setting aside the question of what is standard according to
> authority,
> > the question is: What is right and why?
> >
> > Here are three options for which relationship "goes with"
> include and
> > extend stereotypes:
> > 1. generalization (solid line, closed arrow)
> > 2. dependency (dashed line, open arrow)
> > 3. unidirectional association (solid line, open arrow)
> >
> > -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
*
*************************************************************************
************************************************************************
* 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
*
*************************************************************************
