(responding to Alexandre Sampaio)
> I�ve two questions about actors. I agree with Les that there are no answers that are correct for everybody. This depends to some degree whether you want to be pedantically correct about UML or whether you want to be as clear as possible in what you are saying. > 1. Must we have only one actor initiating the UC? If I have two > actors initiating the UC, like �kiosk customer� and �schedule > administrator� that initializes the same UC, �View game schedule� > (the flow does not change for both), must I generate a more abstract > parent actor? For each use case instantiation, only one Actor can instantiate. However, this Actor is not necessarily always of the same class. If you want to be pedantically correct, then there will be some common subset of behaviours of 'kiosk customer' and 'schedule administrator' that qualify these astors to instantiate this use case, and it _might_ aid future extension of the system if this was separated out into a common superclass of these named actors. OTOH doing this for all such occurrences may result in a multiple inheritance hierarchy, and some people find this comparatively difficult to comprehend. I would find it perfectly adequate in the use case diagram for this use case to link the two named initiating actors with a note saying "XOR" or some other way of indicating one, but not both, instantiate each use case of this class. > 2. May I have an actor that does not interact with an UC? For > example, I have two actors, CIC and PV, these actors have a parent > actor called �CA�. If the actor �CA� does not interact with an UC, is > this a valid actor? And if only the actor �CA� interact with an UC, > are �CIC� and �PV� valid actors? There are few reasons why you might want to do this, but in general I'd agree with Les and say don't do it. Remember, the underlying purpose of an Actor in UML is to document the interaction between the system and a particular class of user of the system. If there is no interaction, the actor tends to be superfluous. There are, however, a few cases where showing such actors can, nevertheless, convey useful information about the system and its context, so I would say, if adding these extra actors does indeed convey useful information, go ahead and add them. Paul Oldfield ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ www.aptprocess.com any opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of Mentors of Cally or the Appropriate Process Movement ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ************************************************************************ * 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 *************************************************************************
