(responding to Eric Tarkington)
> Interesting replies to my original question, but they got diverted into > <<uses>> versus <<include>>. > > I was asking, "Does <<include>> on a use case dependency imply that ALL > of the included behavior of the use case is executed?" > > I'm pretty sure the answer is no, because a use case is a flow of > control, which could be represented by an activity diagram, containing > branches in control. The use case does not have to take every branch > for every incoming event -- it only takes appropriate branches for the > existing conditions. > > If a use case inserts behavior from another use case into its own > behavior, the inserted behavior only has to be that part of the > <<include>>'ed use case that is needed. > > Does anybody disagree with this analysis? All "includers" would need to be happy about using the same entry point into the flow of control of the included Use Case. With this explicit constraint being applied, I agree. Something about your initial posting led me to think that you weren't wanting to use the same entry point, but what you say here looks OK. Paul Oldfield any opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of Mentors of Cally ************************************************************************ * 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/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject:<BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum * *************************************************************************
