hiho,
That
is a very interesting remark. I understood that part of the UML 1.4 was to
refine the extension mechanisms, but I hadn't noticed this particular
issue.
<checking...> Yep, you are right.
The proposed UML 1.4 has multiple stereotypes per modeling
element.
I'm
not certain I understand the past-tense "went away". Am I wrong in
asserting that UML 1.4 has not yet been adopted?
------- b
--
Brian G. Lyons Number Six Software - Voted Rational's Best Complementary Service Provider 1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209-3196 http://www.numbersix.com -----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couball, James Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:52 PM To: 'Aker, Eric'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: (ROSE) Why only one stereotype per element It is
my understanding that this restriction went away with UML 1.4, right?
Correct me if I am wrong.
|
- (ROSE) Why only one stereotype per elemen... Alex Goeman
- RE: (ROSE) Why only one stereotype p... Brian G. Lyons
- Re: (ROSE) Why only one stereotype p... Francois Toubol \(Private Mail\)
- Re: (ROSE) Why only one stereoty... Maison Imóveis
- RE: (ROSE) Why only one stereotype p... Aker, Eric
- RE: (ROSE) Why only one stereoty... Don Bate
- Re: (ROSE) Why only one stereoty... Francois Toubol \(Private Mail\)
- RE: (ROSE) Why only one stereotype p... Couball, James
- Re: (ROSE) Why only one stereoty... andre
- RE: (ROSE) Why only one stereoty... Brian G. Lyons
- RE: (ROSE) Why only one stereotype p... Williams, Larry
- RE: (ROSE) Why only one stereotype p... Francois Toubol \(Private Mail\)
- RE: (ROSE) Why only one stereotype p... Norris, Davyd