Hi Shahid,
of course it is possible. This is the case when included use case can stand on its own. The question is, whether the goal of the use case UC2 is the same when acting as included use case in comparison to acting as use case on its own (when actor invokes it directly, without executing use case UC1). Moreover, you should first answer the question what is the behaviour in each case? Hope this helps, Vladimir. "shahid.mehmood" wrote: > > > I have a system which have two use cases ... RegisterPatient (UC1), & > ProcessCharges (UC2) ... The UC1 includes UC2 ... > > The actor invokes UC1, which in turn invokes UC2 ... and everything is > seems to be under control. BUT there is a need that the same actor CAN > invoke UC2 ON ITS OWN ... now there is something which is confusing me > ... > > Is it legal to do this? > > How UC2 must behave ... > a) when UC2 invoked by UC1? & > b) when UC2 invoked by the Actor? > > waiting anxiously for expert comments. > > thanks > > sm/.. > > Official: Yes > > _____________________________________________________ > The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan www.aku.edu > ************************************************************************ * 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 * *************************************************************************
