To me, part of the problem is that these are not 'views' of the architecture in Rose. If I create a class diagram that I associate with a use case in the use case view and stereotype the classes in it as boundary, control and entity (because I want to capture the classes that participate in the collaboration that realises the use case and want a simple view of them), then I have a problem in the logical view. If I use the same classes, they appear as stereotypes, but if I switch the stereotypes off, then I lose the stereotypes in the use case view too. They also appear with '(from use case view)' or something like that on them (non-UML). If I create new classes in the logical view, because now I have a package architecture, and know that I want a particular class called 'de::geheuk::utils::console::Console' then I lose the fact that this class in my logical view represents the Console class that I had in my use case view class diagram. I have been trying to find a way to implement traceability. So, given a requirements change that affects a use case, it would be nice to be able to use SoDA to trace from the use case in ReqPro to the use case in Rose (OK, can do) to the classes that collaborate to realise that use case (OK, can do) to the classes in the analysis and design model with the same names (can't do) to the generated code (can't do). Simon
-----Original Message----- From: English, Art [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 03 May 2002 15:52 To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Rossomando, Philip Subject: (ROSE) The 4+1 View Model of Architecture I have been having difficulty understanding the 4+1 View Model, so I decided to dig into it more today and I feel that I have reached an understanding, but I also feel that Rational should alleviate the confusion around the 4+1 View Model by making this concept more clear within Rational Rose Let's start by creating a new model in Rose using the RUP template. Rose creates four views: Use Case, Logical, Component, and Deployment The 4+1 Architecture starts with the "Use Case View" that drives the four other views. The Use Case View describes hat the system should do. OK. This is the first view defined in the Rose model that uses the RUP Template. The next view in the 4+1 View Model is the "Logical View." This view contains the Analysis Model and the Design Model. This is OK too. The Rose model still matches up to the 4+1 Architecture. Now we have the Process View in the 4+1 View Model. This view is missing from the Rose model based upon the RUP template. Since I cannot create a new top-level package in Rose (I don't know why this limitation exists. Is there a way around it?), the RUP Tool Mentor for Documenting the Process View in Rational Rose suggest that I create a package in the Logical View of the Rose model and call it the Process View. After creating the process view, I can create class diagrams where classes are stereotyped <<process>> and <<thread>> to add some meat to the process view. I can show how <<process>> and <<thread>> classes are associated with each other in class diagrams-as well as show how they interact in sequence diagrams. Why doesn't the RUP template contain a top-level package for Process View? Why can't I create a top-level package myself in this model for Process View? The next view in the 4+1 View Model is the "Implementation View." In the Rose model based upon the RUP template it is named the "Component View." In the RUP Tool Mentor, Structuring the Implementation Model Using Rational Rose it tells us to put the Implementation Model in the Component View. The Tool Mentor does not mention the Implementation View. Personally I think we should change the Rose model based upon the RUP template and make "Component View" the "Implementation View" or vice versa. I would just like the names to match. The last view in the 4+1 View Model is the "Deployment View." This View matches up in both the 4+1 View Model and the Rose model based upon the RUP template. My only complaint here is why not make this View a package so I can create more than one deployment diagram. This is really a very serious limitation. Also, I know XDE supports putting components in nodes, but Rose does not. This is another limitation that should be fixed. If I am inaccurate in any way, please correct me. My goal is to achieve a full understanding of the 4+1 View Model and additionally how it maps to Rational Rose. Thanks, Art. Arthur English Research Director, Technology and Architecture Global Industries Unisys Corporation One Unisys Way Blue Bell, PA 19424 * * (215) 986-5712 Mobile: (610) 805-0183 Net: 423-5712 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ************************************************************************ DISCLAIMER The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended for the recipient only. If you have received it in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any other purposes, or disclose the content of the e-mail to any other person or store or copy the information in any medium. The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not necessarily those of GEHE Group companies. ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ * 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 *************************************************************************
