|
This
is an old discussion. I've sometimes felt that it feels wrong to use time as an
actor (or thread scheduler or whatever), as this clouds the real purpose of the
use case. I often usethe role responsible for configuring the "Internal periodic
action" and make this role the actor. The actor then initiates the use case.
This has the beneficial side effect that it is suddently possible to change the
settings, which can be a problem if there is no mention of this in the other use
cases/requirements. I have seen cases where it is not specified that e.g. the
interval of running paychecks can be changed or how and how much to log of
internal actions.
Often,
the actors are the ones with an interest in this use case and shold therefore be
connected to it. On the downside many people don't like use cases that are not
finished in a setting and this scheme makes use cases that can be stretched out
over a long period of time.
The
use case thus reads something along the lines of:
Run
Paycheck:
The
Accontant tells when and how often paycheck calculation should be
done.
At the
specified time the system:
a)
Calculates paycheck for the employes using ....
b)
Prints the paychecks and mails them to the ....
c)
....
A
collection of received but not yet handled data/communication are not relevant
unless they are used (I thing). I would describe the collecting of these data in
the use case that uses them (or in the use case that receives them (either by
creating them (a log) or by receiving them from an external system
(actor))
Best
wishes
|
- (ROSE) Periodic Internal Action - Use case specifica... Tomer Lev
- RE: (ROSE) Periodic Internal Action - Use case ... Eeles, Peter
- Re: (ROSE) Periodic Internal Action - Use c... Neil Pitman
- Re: (ROSE) Periodic Internal Action - Use case ... PaulOldfield1
- Jesper Rugaard Jensen
