• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

uml specification perspective

 
Marcos Urata
Greenhorn
Posts: 26
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Is this perspective, do the diagrams have commitment with language implementation??

My doubt is because on Cuellar�s Notes it is said this:


2.Specification perspective: The diagrams are interpreted as describing software abstractions or components with specifications and interfaces but with no commitment to a particular implementation.


On the other hand, on Magnet Mock - IBM Ice Test there is a question that says that the following item quoted is FALSE.


Specification perspective class diagrams are developed without considering the programming language that might be used to implement it.


So, which one is it?
Thanks
Marcos
 
I Roberts
Ranch Hand
Posts: 66
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
UML diagrams are suppose to be independent of programming language implementation. However, the OMG Superstructure Specification does lean towards the Java camp rather than the .NET camp in terms of naming conventions etc. The main purpose of independence is that the models are suppose to be independent in relation to model-driven architecture (MDA).

The only reliable source on the UML specification is the UML Superstructure Specification that can be downloaded free from the OMG website:

www.omg.org

Hope this helps?
 
I Roberts
Ranch Hand
Posts: 66
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Whoops, better correct what I have just said before someone else does! UML diagrams without personal extention are suppose to be programming language independent. UML supports dynamic generalisation and multiple generalisation; Java and .NET do not.
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic