[Uml-devel] bug

[Jonathan Riddell]

> > I have never seen such a thing in UML books. Do you really think this is
> > necessary? I mean if it is possible to have multiple transition, why is
> > there fork/join/branch/merge?
> >
> well... the forj/join is a different beast: those are to represent different
> threads of execution --> to go to activities which are supposed to happen in
> "parallel" (fork) or to synchronize the execution at the end of two
> activities (join)
>
> s for branch/merge.. yes.. I suppose you are right:
> All you can achieve with multiple transitions can be represented with a branch
> (actually, I think this is the clearer way to do it).. I just think that
> having the transitions directly from the activities could save some work.
>
> UML says that activities can have more than one outgoing transitions as long
> as they are differentiated by conditions (if [condition a] transition 1, if
> [condition b] transition 2, else transition 3 )
> which is precisily what branches do ... again, it would be only for
> convencience... but it's up to you if you want to accept this.

I've changed assocrules.cpp to allow for multiple outgoing associations
from activites.  It would seem strange for state diagrams to allow them
but not activity diagrams.

Jonathan Riddell