TADESSE TAREKE.pdf - Addis Ababa University

Development of BROOM Business Rules Object-Oriented Method
Compared to UML 1.5 Class diagrams, not much has been changed in UML 2.0
Class diagrams. For a summary of the changes made, refer to [36]. Therefore, it
suffices to check the necessity, sufficiency and consistency of UML 1.5 instead of
UML 2.0 for our proposed method.
In modeling a system with the standard UML class diagram, it is well known that
operations are modeled as though they are more stable or static (may not be
changed without programmers interventions) part of the system. Furthermore,
unlike attributes’ values of a class, operations are also assumed to be
stored/buried/embedded as methods in the implementation of OOP languages that
are inaccessible for the businesspeople (i.e., end users of the system). However,
the usual OO implementation reveals that values of an attribute are stored in a
repository system such as RDBMS and these are the only dynamically changeable
things by the businesspeople.
Therefore, at least, we need to devise a modeling mechanism for those changing
business rules (including newly defined or deleted ones). For example, using a
stereotype UML extension mechanism, the operations compartment of a class can
be divided into two parts: «Dynamic Operations» and «Persistence Operations». Note
that « and » are single characters called left and right Guillemets respectively. Not
all the operations are required to be changed by the businesspeople.
Thus, the usual modeling technique can still be applied for those persistence
operations, which are static/stable by nature (i.e., the persistence layer’s
operations are stable). This is handled by the «Persistence Operations». The
dynamic part that is subject to change and can be managed by the businesspeople
is modeled by «Dynamic Operations».
23