Icon class icon_class fas fa-quote-left icon_class_computed fas fa-quote-left Related content It is NOT true in SysML1.6+ that you "should" always use a SysML FullPort or a SysML ProxyPort instead of a "standard" Port, and it's not even always a good idea (and the spec states this very clearly in multiple places)! Source OMG Systems Modeling Language (SysML) 1.6 Copyright information About Object Management Group copyright in text extracts quoted from OMG specifications for educational purposes Snippet kind INFO UML keywords Port Previous snippet Full ports cannot be behavioral in the UML sense of standing in for the owning object, because they handle features themselves, rather than exposing features of their owners, or internal parts of their owners. Full quote Ports that are not specified as proxy or full are simply called “ports.” Next snippet In either case, users of a block are only concerned with the features of its ports, regardless of whether the features are surfaced by proxy ports, or handled by full ports directly. On this site such Ports are referred to as "standard" Ports Related snippets SysML identifies two [EDIT:ADDITIONAL] usage patterns for ports, one where ports act as proxies for their owning blocks or its internal parts (proxy ports), and another where ports specify separate elements of the system (full ports). Related snippets (backlinks) Proxy and full ports support the capabilities of ports in general, but these capabilities are also available on ports that are not declared as proxy or full. Modelers can choose between proxy or full ports at any time in the development lifecycle, or not at all, depending on their methodology. Modelers have the option of applying stereotypes for proxy and full ports to indicate whether ports are specifying features of their owners and internal parts (proxy), or for themselves separately (full). This is a concern when defining ports, rather ... Using existing blocks with ports only requires knowing the port types, because they define the features available for linking or communication with those ports via connectors. The stereotypes of proxy and full ports might be elided in these cases to simplify diagrams. Modelers can apply stereotypes for proxy and full ports at any stage of model development, or not all if the stereotype constraints are not needed. Figure 9-7 happens to use unstereotyped ports on a general block distributed to users, and stereotyped ports on its specializations for implementation, but the modelers might have not used stereotypes at all, if they did not care whether the model met ... Unstereotyped ports do not commit to whether they are proxy or full, and do not prevent or dictate future application of the stereotypes, except for ports that violate constraints of the stereotypes. For example, if the port types on the general block in Figure 9-7 had behaviors defined, then the proxy specialization would be invalid. If the general ports had binding connectors to internal parts, then the full specialization would be invalid. Unstereotyped ports have the basic functionality of stereotyped ones, including flow properties and nested ports, so they can be used as long as the modeler is not concerned with the distinction between proxy and full, and the constraints they impose. If the general ports had both behaviors and internal binding connectors, then both specializations would be invalid. Visit also Visit also (backlinks) Flags
