You could nevertheless argue that these make sense only if the user observe these behaviors, so there is an interaction with the player. Ball falls, hit all bricks, hit brick, and display score are behaviors that are more questionable: they do not require a collaboration or an interaction with the player.Start game, move paddle, restart game, and exit game are behaviors that the game (subject) offers in collaboration with the player (actor).Let's check the validity of your UC in view of this definition: To the state of the subject and communications with its environment. Interactions between the Actors and the subject, may result in changes UseCases define the offered Behaviors of the subject without Each UseCase specifies someīehavior that a subject can perform in collaboration with one or moreĪctors. UML is value-agnostic and defines UC on page 637 of the specs (highlight by me):Ī UseCase is a kind of BehavioredClassifier that represents aĭeclaration of a set of offered Behaviors. More details Is it formally correct according to UML? But what matters in the end is if it is useful to you. But this does not make make them good use-cases. This is an (almost) valid use-case diagram.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |