I'm a new StarUML user and I'm using it for a production design model at work
and noticed a few things that I had questions about:
Why is it that when I create a class on a class diagram and then subclass from it (using the Generalization association), the type is not automatically updated for me? In other words, based on other UML tools I've used, as soon as I draw the generalization, the tool recognizes that I'm subclassing and therefore recognizing the base type.
1a. Perhaps I am misstating what I'm seeing in 1. above, but I know for sure
that this happens when I draw a Realization association between an object and
a class. I believe this is the first UML tool that I've ever seen permit me to
use objects as a "toolbox item".
Why can I not use certain associations between objects on class diagrams? For example, I get the famous "elements must be connected exactly" message a lot of the time when I'm trying to attach objects to other objects (for example, in Composition or Aggregation relationships - I know that one object is going to have X items of this type and Y items of this other type, but I can't draw them that way, so I have to resort to associating the classes instead). This leads me to:
Why, if I specify multiplicity for one class aggregating or composing another class or classes, can I not change the multiplicity individually? I suspect I know the answer, but since I'm having trouble with specific instances (objects) as noted above, I was curious. I now have to put disclaimer notes in my model saying, "These multiplicities to these classes are incorrect over here, but over there, they are correct."
What is the difference in the Design Model and the Implementation Model? Since I pretty much know how the model is going to turn out, and since I've done so much UML, it seems like I can be very implementation-centric in my Design Model.
Thank you for your time.
Mike
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Greetings,
I'm a new StarUML user and I'm using it for a production design model at work
and noticed a few things that I had questions about:
1a. Perhaps I am misstating what I'm seeing in 1. above, but I know for sure
that this happens when I draw a Realization association between an object and
a class. I believe this is the first UML tool that I've ever seen permit me to
use objects as a "toolbox item".
Why can I not use certain associations between objects on class diagrams? For example, I get the famous "elements must be connected exactly" message a lot of the time when I'm trying to attach objects to other objects (for example, in Composition or Aggregation relationships - I know that one object is going to have X items of this type and Y items of this other type, but I can't draw them that way, so I have to resort to associating the classes instead). This leads me to:
Why, if I specify multiplicity for one class aggregating or composing another class or classes, can I not change the multiplicity individually? I suspect I know the answer, but since I'm having trouble with specific instances (objects) as noted above, I was curious. I now have to put disclaimer notes in my model saying, "These multiplicities to these classes are incorrect over here, but over there, they are correct."
What is the difference in the Design Model and the Implementation Model? Since I pretty much know how the model is going to turn out, and since I've done so much UML, it seems like I can be very implementation-centric in my Design Model.
Thank you for your time.
Mike