[Moims-mp] Representation of COM Object Details

[Mehran.Sarkarati at esa.int]

Hi Roger,

This is a very nice and clever approach. 

I would not use Generalisation and inheritance from COM Object but instead 
the annotation of <<COM Object>>.

This is simlar to use <<EJB>> annotation for Enterprise JAVA Beans or 
other framework patterns (Spring, etc.). The reason is that COM is like a 
pattern. It means by declaring an object to be a COM object, you put a set 
of requirements and "assumptions" (having related to, source, unique 
identity composed of domain, type, instance identifier, ....) 
Maybe this is a detail, but I think it would make it even more in line 
with other books and notation.

Regards
Mehran



From:   "Roger Thompson" <roger.rocketbrain at btinternet.com>
To:     <Mehran.Sarkarati at esa.int>, <moims-mp at mailman.ccsds.org>
Date:   12/03/2019 17:36
Subject:        Representation of COM Object Details



Dear All,
 
I have been playing around within EA and it seems there may be a 
relatively straightforward representation for the COM Object / Details 
problem.
 
I have modelled Request Version Details as a separate class [structure] 
that contains the attributes specific to the Request Version.
Request Version has one non-inherited attribute, ObjectBody of type 
Request Version Details.  There is also containment relationship between 
Request Version and Request Version Details
Attributes of Request Version are hidden.
 
By placing the Request Version Details structure inside the box of the 
Request Version object, the containment relationship is not shown 
(providing Request Version Details is totally contained within the Request 
Version).  Relationships can continue to be shown to the Request Version 
object.  So we end up with the following representation, with correct 
modelling internally:
 

 
This would both satisfy alignment with the M&C service representation and 
allow us to retain more or less the current diagram layouts.
Creation of the ?Details? data types is relatively straightforward as the 
structure of the current COM objects can be duplicated as a new Details 
Object, the attributes removed from the COM object, but the relationships 
retained.
 
If everyone is happy with this, I can go ahead and update the model.  I 
can probably get this done before the next telecon.
 
Cheers,
 
Roger


This message is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain proprietary information and/or
protected content. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, retention or dissemination is prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. ESA applies appropriate organisational measures to protect
personal data, in case of data privacy queries, please contact the ESA Data Protection Officer (dpo at esa.int).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-mp/attachments/20190313/1eb693ae/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 18589 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-mp/attachments/20190313/1eb693ae/attachment-0001.png>