Re: Syntax changes in UML 2.0
- From: "Pradyumn Sharma" <pradyumnsharma@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Jul 2005 09:30:52 -0700
There are other things too that I don't see any reason for. For
example, discontinuation of discreet cardinalities (e.g., 3..5). These
may not be very common, but sometimes useful. For example, a truck can
have 4,6,8,10 wheels, but writing 4..10 is misleading.
Pradyumn
Matthias Kaeppler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering what was the reason to change the syntax for components
> in UML2? I don't see any real improvements and even think the old one
> (which is now deprecated) was more expressive (you could separate a
> component from e.g. a class by its shape, now you have to look at the
> stereotype).
>
> Just curious.
>
> --
> Matthias Kaeppler
.
- References:
- Syntax changes in UML 2.0
- From: Matthias Kaeppler
- Syntax changes in UML 2.0
- Prev by Date: Re: Template documents
- Next by Date: Re: Bitwise Mag editorial calls OOP 'Snake Oil'
- Previous by thread: Syntax changes in UML 2.0
- Next by thread: Re: Syntax changes in UML 2.0
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|