组件 - 子组件关系还是泛化关系？在组件图 UML 中
Component - Subcomponent Relationship or Generalization Relationship? in Component Diagram UML
我对组件 - 子组件关系感到困惑，并且
组件之间的泛化关系。
我们何时需要将两个组件作为组件 - 子组件关系提及，何时将它们作为泛化关系提及。
在Component Diagrams中，Generalization关系（图A）可以一直被称为Component-Subcomponent关系（图B）吗？ （可以理解，inverse为假）
图A：
图B：
图B中的符号用来表示component realization关系
www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/Beta2:
11.6.3 Structured Classifiers → Components → Semantics
...A Component may be realized (or implemented) by a number of Classifiers. In that case, a Component owns a set of ComponentRealizations to these Classifiers.
A component acts like a Package for all model elements that are involved in or related to its definition, which should be either owned or imported explicitly. Typically the Classifiers that realize a Component are owned by it...
您可以像使用任何其他 class 一样使用 generalization relationship (figure A) between components as usual because component is an UML classifier。
但是图A和图B代表不同的东西和图B你的例子是不行
我对组件 - 子组件关系感到困惑，并且 组件之间的泛化关系。
我们何时需要将两个组件作为组件 - 子组件关系提及，何时将它们作为泛化关系提及。
在Component Diagrams中，Generalization关系（图A）可以一直被称为Component-Subcomponent关系（图B）吗？ （可以理解，inverse为假）
图A：
图B：
图
B中的符号用来表示component realization关系www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5/Beta2:
11.6.3 Structured Classifiers → Components → Semantics
...A
Componentmay be realized (or implemented) by a number of Classifiers. In that case, aComponentowns a set ofComponentRealizationsto theseClassifiers.A component acts like a
Packagefor all model elements that are involved in or related to its definition, which should be either owned or imported explicitly. Typically theClassifiersthat realize aComponentare owned by it...您可以像使用任何其他 class 一样使用 generalization relationship (figure
A) between components as usual because component is an UML classifier。
但是图A和图B代表不同的东西和图B你的例子是不行