Re: Dependencies and horror



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Daniel Jackson (dnj@lcs.mit.edu)
Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:56:27 -0400


joaquin, you're right. i don't think that it's unreasonable to have terms of convenience without a very precise meaning. it's just frustrating that UML seems so often to be making a confusion out of something that people have thought carefully about. when was david parnas's paper on dependences? early 70's, i think. /daniel At 05:06 PM 6/22/2001, Joaquin Miller wrote: >Daniel Jackson wrote: >>joaquin's quote (from the UML spec? [yes]) about dependences: >> >> The spec is explicit: "a term of convenience for a relationship >> other than ..." >> >>horrifies me... > >i'm afraid that i am a case like Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde. Sometimes i am >horrified, and sometime i am the horror: i feel it is quite reasonable to >have a generic term (or term of convenience) for a group of generic >relationship types. > >perhaps, Daniel, you are more exact in the cause of your horror, and it is >that you don't want to let them have the important word, 'dependency' for >this term of convenience. in one personality, i agree with you, while >still feeling comfortable with generic (catch-all) terms. in the other >personality, my horror is very diffuse: can UML 2.0 say what it means, exactly? > > >PGP Fingerprint: >CA23 6BCA ACAB 6006 E3C3 0E79 2122 94B4 E5FD 42C3


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view