Author Topic: Representing Components and Interfaces  (Read 895 times)

agavin

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Representing Components and Interfaces
« on: August 09, 2004, 02:08:54 am »
I am trying top build a model of components and their interfaces.

I really like the UML 2 visual representation of a component with an exposed provided (lollipop) or required (socket) interface.

Ideally, I would like to be able to 'explore' double click or otherwise this provided interface to see the attributes and operations that detail this interface and hence the functionality provided by the component.

However, I am aware that I cannot define the operations etc. on the exposed interface.  I have to use a classifier interface on which I can define the attributes operations, but this is still not seemlessly linked and results in 2 artifacts which in reality are the same thing?  (in my mind that is...)

This seems messy and I was wondering whether anybody has any other suggestions as to how I can represent components showing their interfaces and operations defined on these interface in a more seemless manner.  Key is to be able to have a concise definition of our business components showing interfaces and operations etc.

Rob_M

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Representing Components and Interfaces
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2004, 04:03:35 pm »
Here is a bit of a trick that I think gives you what you want.

Instead of creating an interface, create a class.
Add the operations that you would normally to a class.
Once you have all your operations defined,  go to the element menu and select "Change Type"
Select the interface type.

You can now toggle between lollipop and square notation by right clicking on the interface and selecting "use circle notation" .

When in square notation, all operations are shown.  When in circle notation its just the lollipop.

The downside is you have to change the type back to class if you want  to add operations, but I think its workable.

Rob M