On the semantics of permanent use-relations

3 weeks ago I have written a blog with the Title Domain-Specific Presentation is Component Visualization. The idea was to provide a domain-specific component visualization which is aware of the different types of components and their relations.

Since then I've asked myself if there isn't any UML-way to visualize domain-specific components. I know how this sounds like: UML is generic by its very nature but not domain-specific. But let's give it a try anyway.

Before starting I have have to explain one thing first: actifsource distinguish only between two types of relations: the own-relation and the use-relation. The own-relation defines a strong coupling. If A owns B, B must not exist without A. The use-relation on the other hand doesn't imply any life-time semantics.

As I explained in my blog Software Architecture and Components, domain-specific components are defined implicitly around the own-relations of their meta-model.

Looking at the UML Component Diagram we find out that relations between components are realized as delegation connectors which connects a port to an element of the component.


And now the interesting question: does every use-relation between components lead to a port?

To answer this question, lets have a look at the meta-model of a UML class. A class can be seen as a component as well, composing

• a name attribute
• member variables
• member functions

Lets have a closer look at member variables which can express to different relations:

• own relation
• use relation

Unfortunately, using 3rd GL's the semantic isn't always that clear. Programming in C++ I use pointers to imply use-relations and references or value-objects to imply own-relations whenever possible.

Before continuing the discussion, let's have a look at member functions. Functions consist of named and typed arguments. The types are modeled as a use-relation to other existing types.

So, what is the difference between the use-relation of member-variables to other types and the use-relation of typed arguments of a member function?

The use-relations of member-variables define the permanent relations between components while the use-relations of typed arguments of a function definition simply simply define a temporary relation.

Obviously we have to distinguish between two different of use-relations:

• use-relations which define permanent relations between components
  
• use-relations which define temporary relations between components

For a valuable component relation overview we are interested only in permanent relations between components which leads to the following definition:

Permanent use-relations shall be shown as ports in a component diagram.

In my next blog I try to explain how composite structures shall be visualized using the UML Composite Structure Diagram combined with the idea of ports for permanent use-relations.