• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

UML Actors

 
Greenhorn
Posts: 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Can "Time" be an actor because system does something in response to a time event?
Thanks.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 62
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi

Im quite new, but I shall try to answer as best I understand. I dont believe time can be an actor. An actor is someone or something that interacts with the system. Actors interact with use cases. A should result in something of measurable benefit to the participating actors, and this is where time cannot be an actor.

UML does provide notation for events, nicluding time event which looks a bit like an angular hour glass. Have a look at this holub reference card
 
author
Posts: 608
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It is quite common for Time to be an actor, often to kick off an event. Or, many people will choose to not show it on the diagram and simply discuss it in the use case. Both approaches are valid, choose one and stick to it.

- Scott
 
(instanceof Sidekick)
Posts: 8791
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
We show timer or scheduler as an actor in use cases now & then. As I think about it, our time-driven scenarios are usually not use cases themselves. I'll have to think about why ... the lack of a UI shouldn't mean there is no use case.

I more often show timer or scheduler in sequence diagrams as the source of the trigger event that starts the sequence. Maybe the use case just says "the system sends a message to x" and it's an implementation detail that we happen to make this asynchronous with a timer.
 
Greenhorn
Posts: 4
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by D Smith:
Can "Time" be an actor because system does something in response to a time event?
Thanks.



There is no problem with the concept but Time is not a good name for the actor. Look at whatever is generating those events and use the proper name of that. e.g. System Clock etc.
 
Bartender
Posts: 2968
6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Stan James:
our time-driven scenarios are usually not use cases themselves. I'll have to think about why ...


The three amigos initially stated:


A time event is an event that depends on the passage of time and therefore on the existence of a clock . In the real world the clock is implicit. In a computer it is a physical entity� The time event is a message from the clock to the system.

Time events are not declared as named events the way signals are. Instead a time expression is simply used as the trigger of a transition.


I don't know if they have changed their tune for UML 2.0.
 
Willie Smits can speak 40 languages. This tiny ad can speak only one:
Thread Boost feature
https://coderanch.com/t/674455/Thread-Boost-feature
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic