1/14/2024 0 Comments Bouml agregationIf the problem identified is not a legal problem, the portal may suggest several generic non-legal solutions with an appropriate handoff. Provided classes : ProblemIdentificationInterface Perhaps most innovative and also most challenging, the portal should make the appropriate handoff for cases that are out of scope (not legal problems) if possible. Similarly, some case types should be confidential, possibly requiring different data handling and the exclusion of some information to some partners. Some case types like domestic violence may require emergency responses, so the portal should recommend appropriate actions in those cases. Of course, a litigant may still choose to forego a lawyer or may decide to acquire their services through an eligible provider, so they still should not bypass the Assistance module. The portal should recognize these instances. If there is not a legal problem, or not one that the portal can respond to, the litigant may still gain value by exercising the solutions module.Ĭomments and Issues: Once correctly mapped to the appropriate court case type, there may be rights in certain cases to full representation by a lawyer. Again, there may be several possible case types or causes of action for a particular legal problem, so the module should suggest all alternatives and explain the tradeoffs. The module will prompt for information that enables the portal to determine if it is a legal problem within the scope of the portal, and maps the legal problem to a court case type. Of course, that determination is not entirely an objective one, so it is more a matter of suggesting available legal strategies when appropriate. This module prompts the user to describe their problem in a way that will enable the portal to determine if it is a legal problem. Stereotype: entity 1.1.16 Use Case Search for Court Case 1.1.17 Use Case Request Accomodation 1.1.18 Use Case Receive Court Reminders 1.1.19 Use Case Publish Court Reminders 1.2 Component View Components Help litigants execute desired legal actions.ġ.1.11 Use Case Route Clients to ProvidersĪutomatically support provider intake processes.Īutomatically report provider outcome information to the portalĬollect litigant satisfaction with outcomesĪutomatically update provider systems with result data.Ī repository of profile information including legal issues and information about the litigant. Help litigants make key decisions about their legal cases. Help litigants navigate the legal process. Help potential litigants find the kind of legal assistance they want.Īutomatically route eligible clients to appropriate providers. Help potential litigants decide what kind of legal assistance they need. Help litigants decide if they need full legal representation Help potential litigants decide how best to resolve their legal problem Help potential litigants determine what outcomes they want. Help potential litigants identify related legal problems. Help potential litigants identify typical legal problems that they might have. Stereotype: actor 1.1.3 Use Case Identify Issues As I don't have experience with Bouml, I don't know if it does such deduction.Stereotype: actor 1.1.2 Class SolutionProvider If the vector contained them, then aggregation relationship could be trivially deduced from the type. However, std::unique_ptr does signify ownership clearly. A pointer type does not signify anything about ownership, so based on the type alone, it's impossible to distinguish association and aggregation. My guess is that it deduces the diagram based on the types of the members and what it knows about existing, standard classes. I don't have experience with Bouml, but I highly doubt that it would be able figure out what the destructor does. If A's destructor would destroy all the pointed objects, then A would be managing the lifetime of the objects and the mapping would be considered aggregation according to the given definition. The relationship is clearly identical to the E type. Therefore the relationship is indeed association. Currently, A does not manage the lifetime of the F objects. So, their difference is that in case of aggregation, A (in your case) manages the lifetime of the pointed object(s). This is how the page that you linked describes association and aggregation:Īssociation: Foo has a pointer to Bar object as a data member, without managing the Bar object -> Foo knows about BarĪggregation: Foo has a pointer to Bar object and manages the lifetime of that object -> Foo contains a Bar, but can also exist without it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |