简体   繁体   English

UML用例图:泛化子级是否继承父级的包含/扩展?

[英]UML Use Case Diagram: Do generalisation children inherit include/extends from parent?

Given the following scenario: 鉴于以下情况:

[...] The refueling is terminated either when the maximal permissible amount of petrol is dispensed, or when the customer decides to put the hose back into the mounting plate. daccess-ods.un.org daccess-ods.un.org在分配最大允许汽油量或客户决定将软管放回安装板时,加油将终止。 The amout owed for the petrol dispensed is charged to the customer's credit card account when the refueling process has finished. 加油过程结束后,分配给汽油的欠款将从客户的信用卡帐户中扣除。 [...] [...]

Now while trying to model this in a Use Case Diagram I came up with this: 现在,当尝试在用例图中建模时,我想到了:

FOO

My main question is: Do child use cases inherit include and extend relationships? 我的主要问题是: 儿童用例是否继承并扩展关系? Is this valid/meaningful? 这有效/有意义吗?

You are wrong here (like in the other question). 您在这里错了(就像另一个问题一样)。 Terminate is no Use Case (at best it's an anti-use case). Terminate不是用例(充其量是个反用例)。 The same goes for the other bubbles except for bill credit card . bill credit card外,其他泡沫也一样。 The (most likely) missing UC is Fuel car . (最有可能)缺少的UC是Fuel car

Generally: do NOT use generalization with UCs. 通常:不要对UC使用概括。 It's an awful bad idea. 这是一个糟糕的主意。 An added value is unique (remember: it is related to unique sales proposition). 增值是唯一的(请记住:它与唯一的销售主张有关)。 You can (in 99.9% not generalize that, except you have a franchise, which is the only example that would work). 您可以(99.9%的人不能一概而论,除非您拥有特许经营权,这是唯一可行的例子)。

And again: Read Bittner/Spence to understand why UCs are about added value and not about functions. 再说一遍:阅读Bittner / Spence,了解为什么UC是关于增值而不是功能。

声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.

 
粤ICP备18138465号  © 2020-2024 STACKOOM.COM