qazmlp1209 wrote:
> 1.
> actor1 writes a letter.
> ----------------------
> In the above case there are 2 actors: actor1 and letter
> 1 usecase: write letter
>
> How does the usecase diagram looklike?
>
> actor1-------->(write letter)----->letter
>
> or
>
> actor1<-------(write letter)<-----letter
>
> or something else?
If both 'actor1' and the 'letter' are very important in your case, then
there
may be the need to keep track of
1. From 'actor1' point of view, What letter the 'actor1' writes.
2. From 'letter' point of view, who has written the letter.
I'll draw either
1 0....*
actor1--------------->letter
or
actor1---------------letter
depending on the requirements.
> 2. Is <<uses>> association replaced by <<include>> in UML
> standard?
Yes. That was done in UMLv1.2.
Read
slide 14:
http://www.rational.com/media/uml/viewfront.pdf
> Can we still use <<uses>> in our usecase diagrams?
No. Use <<include>> as UML suggests.
> 3. What about the name of the associations? Can we assign any
> name or it should be one of the standard association
> names(uses, include, includes etc.)?
As I know, your usecase diagram itself should tell that association
relation, names implicitly.
But, you can use the stereotypes.
--
Nithyanand.
Siemens, Bangalore, India.
(Opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the opinions of my
employer,
SIEMENS)
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* 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
*************************************************************************
