Excellent question. UML has a "lollypop" decoration for interface - a short line with an open circle. Anybody know if Java practitioners interpret this literally as a Java interface? I criticized somebody's model recently because I didn't read it that way. Still don't know if he did.
A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of the idea. John Ciardi
The "lollipop" is one way to depict an interface - another is to simply use an <<interface>> stereotype on a class.
Stan, how did you interprete the "lollipop"?
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny - it is the light that guides your way. - Heraclitus
Joined: Jan 29, 2003
I kinda ignored it . Back in the days we were getting Rational mentoring we were doing PowerBuilder. There was no "interface" in the language. We used lollypops to indicate something about a published public API that we expected others to use. We were probably mis-using it to express some scoping concept like public and REALLY public.
As for that recent incident, I was looking for <<interface>> on the diagram and not finding it. Somehow the lollypop didn't register as perhaps the same thing. What I was really looking for was DIP but that wasn't what the author was talking about, so there was pretty major disconnect on my part all along. Sigh, face-to-face wins over diagrams any day.
Originally posted by Stan James: We used lollypops to indicate something about a published public API that we expected others to use. We were probably mis-using it to express some scoping concept like public and REALLY public.