Using Rose, the way to model an interface is to use a class with the stereotype <<interface>>. 1) The default icon for this stereotype is the lollipop. As I understand UML, interfaces are not meant to be instantiated, so I assume the interface "class" in Rose only serves two purposes: a) as a placeholder for the interface specification, and b) visualizing the existence of the interface. Is this correct? 2) Say I have an object on a client calling a method on another object on a server. If I put the class for the client object in one package called "Client", and the class for the server object in - surprise - a package called "server". One way of modelling the relationship between these classes would be to draw a dependency from the client package to the server package on a class diagram. Another way would be to add an interface "class" and drawing a <<realize>> association from the to the server packaged to the interface, and a dependency arrow from the client package to the interface. A) what's the best way of modelling this scenario?, and b) either one of these model solutions will be visible in the code? Thanks Erik ************************************************************************ * 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 * *************************************************************************
