UML: Is it allowed to introduce custom stereotypes on classes? What about methods?
- From: Matthias Kaeppler <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 07:42:56 +0200
Hello again,
we had the problem to model a Java 5 enumeration in a class diagram in UML, and our approach was to just model it as a usual class and put a {enumeration} after the class name.
Is that okay? I know UML knows such things as {abstract}, but is it okay to shamelessly plug in your own stereotypes?
We also did this with methods:
Since we use a very limited modelling tool, which had no means of modelling methods as abstract or even static, we e.g. modelled a static method like this:
+ foo() : void {static}Is that okay?
-- Matthias Kaeppler .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: UML: Is it allowed to introduce custom stereotypes on classes? What about methods?
- From: Robert C . Martin
- Re: UML: Is it allowed to introduce custom stereotypes on classes? What about methods?
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: UML: Is it allowed to introduce custom stereotypes on classes? What about methods?
- Prev by Date: Re: UML: Associations between classes and packages
- Next by Date: Re: Dated info: Mentor acquires Project Technology
- Previous by thread: looking4 Visual Paradigm 2.2
- Next by thread: Re: UML: Is it allowed to introduce custom stereotypes on classes? What about methods?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
