Hey Jeff.
I think that you didn't understand Art's thought.
If does Rose own a RUP's template, why to don't accommodate
perfectly its own concepts?.
I think that Rational had to review the
concepts to nullify suches discrepancies clearly identified by Art.
[]’s
Takai.
-----Mensagem original-----
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Em nome de Lowe, Jeff
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 3 de maio
de 2002 12:51
Para: 'English, Art';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Rossomando, Philip
Assunto: RE: (RUP) The 4+1 View
Model of Architecture
I think you're blurring the boundary between Rose/UML and
RUP. It first helps to make a clear distinction between the UML and
RUP. The UML is a modeling language that facilitates the creation of well
formed models, but it doesn't specify specific models. RUP is a
development process that defines the semantics of a specific set of models
(e.g. Use Case, Business Use-Case, Analysis, Design, Domain, etc.), along with
the 4+1 View Model.
That said, Rose is a general UML modeling tool and was around
before RUP as we know it. The views in Rose correspond to the level
of specificity of its contained modeling elements, that is, from concepts (i.e.
use cases) to physical implementation. They are independant of any
specific development process.
In RUP's 4+1 Model, the term Logical View refers to a set of
classes that make up the software's structure. In Rose, the term Logical
View refers to any classes (excluding use cases which are theoretically also
classes).
In RUP's 4+1 Model, the Process View refers to a set of
classes that represent processess and threads. In Rose
(which is process independant remember), the Process View is one
of many models or views that are made up of classes, and therefore are part of
the its Logical View.
Jeff Lowe
Software Architect
CELT Corporation
199 Forest St.
Marlboro, MA 01752
508-624-4474 x1237
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: English, Art
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday,
May 03, 2002 10:52
AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Rossomando, Philip
Subject: (RUP) 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]
