Expressing component properties in UML 2.0



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Miguel Goulão (miguel.goulao@di.fct.unl.pt)
Date: Mon 19 May 2003 - 19:12:38 BST


What is the correct way of expressing component properties with UML 2.0, considering the U2 Partners superstructure proposal as a reference?

According to this proposal, the external view of a component is defined through ports. Ports represent named interfaces that are either provided or required by the component. So, if I want to specify that a client component has a request rate of X, does this mean I should create an extra interface on my client component to allow accessing that property? Isn't this too cluttering for the diagrams? Are there better options? 

The internal view of the component allows expressing its private properties, through classifiers and their interconnections. Again, if all I want is to express that the component has a property which is a number of type Real, expressing it through an internal classifier seems too cluttering. And I don't think I can then use OCL to make some sort of automatic reasoning about the overall design properties of the system based on the properties of its components, or expressing some invariant based on those properties, if the properties are internal. 

Please note that I am thinking of properties in a sense that is common in ADLs: semantic information about a system and its components that goes beyond structural information. This is where I would define extra-functional properties.

Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions, 
Miguel
----
Miguel Goulão
Departamento de Informática da FCT/ UNL
Quinta da Torre, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal
Tel: +351-21 294 85 36  - Ext. 10731
Fax: +351-21 294 85 41
E-mail: miguel.goulao@di.fct.unl.pt
http://ctp.di.fct.unl.pt/QUASAR

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view