Re: RE: statecharts and activity diagrams



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Les Munday (baldrick@ureach.com)
Date: Mon 07 Oct 2002 - 17:53:57 BST


> 3. It is easier to bend activity diagrams to break the rules -
 as you
> have noted. Say for instance I want to express the situation 
where I
> have 4 tasks to do but I don't care which order they are done 
in. This
> is very common. For instance, when inputting an order you 
need to put in
> the delivery address, the payment details, customer 
identification and
> the order line details but it makes no difference what's done 
first. I'm
> sure this can be expressed in state charts but I for one am 
not sure how
> to do this in a way that is easy to read. (I would be very 
interested in
> knowing if there is a good solution to this problem.) 

Briefly, statecharts allow parallelism by splitting a state 
into numerous substates seperated by a solid line connecting 
the boundary of the parent state. 

Each compartment is labelled with the activity names that are 
running in parallel, i.e. 'entering address', 'afixing 
stamps', 'tying string', etc.

Personally, I don't like this notation and will avoid any 
semblence of the nested state notation in statecharts whenever 
possible (just sometimes it can be useful). IMO activity 
diagrams do a much better job than statecharts at describing 
parallel processes.

Les.

Les.

________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view