Author Topic: <<Use>> stereotype - My mistake  (Read 570 times)

jeshaw2

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 701
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I'm a Singleton, what pattern are you?
    • View Profile
<<Use>> stereotype - My mistake
« on: December 13, 2006, 09:04:35 pm »
In a couple of my posts, I've indicated that the <<use>> stereotype is not present in UML 2.x.  I've discovered that I'm incorrect in that assertion.  It is discussed in Section 7.3.53 of both UML 2 Superstructure documents.  I don't know how I missed that.  :-[

My apologies to all.
Verbal Use Cases aren't worth the paper they are written upon.

«Midnight»

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 5651
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • That nice Mister Grey
    • View Profile
Re: <<Use>> stereotype - My mistake
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2006, 05:52:00 am »
Quote
In a couple of my posts, I've indicated that the <<use>> stereotype is not present in UML 2.x.  I've discovered that I'm incorrect in that assertion.  It is discussed in Section 7.3.53 of both UML 2 Superstructure documents.  I don't know how I missed that.  :-[
My apologies to all.

I noticed you had, but figured you were referring to the visual representation. Recent OMG documents tend to omit the stereotype on diagrams.
No, you can't have it!

jeshaw2

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 701
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I'm a Singleton, what pattern are you?
    • View Profile
Re: <<Use>> stereotype - My mistake
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2006, 06:49:22 am »
For a primary actor in a Use Case diagram, I think the <<use>> stereotype designation is a bit redundant; but it might be helpful to those unwashed in the subtleties of UML semantics.

The stereotype <<use>> does appear on the diagram in Sect. 7.3.53, Fig 73.

From the UML 2.1 Superstructure document:
Quote
A usage is a relationship in which one element requires another element (or set of elements) for its full implementation or operation. In the metamodel, a Usage is a Dependency in which the client requires the presence of the supplier.
This sounds like the stereotype can be used in other situations than just the Use Case diagram.

Thinking further, and noting that <<use>> is a dependency relation, I ask myself several questions:
  • If a dependency is noted as a dashed line, why do we use a solid line for it on a Use Case Diagram?
  • How does a <<use>> dependency differ from the normal (non-stereotyped) dependency?
  • Why doesn't EA have <<use>> listed in the Stereotype drop-down for the Use association tool in the Use Case Toolbox?
  • The above quote brings visions of a dependency on a catalyst floating into my mind.  Might that be a difference?
  • How does one model a catalyst in the UML?
I don't have good answers for these questions.  Perhaps I need some more washing? ;)
Verbal Use Cases aren't worth the paper they are written upon.