Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 Exam - Topic 5 Question 11 Discussion

Choose the correct answer:A modeler wants to develop a customization for a standard UML tool that provides the ability to specify CORBA physical Components.Which approach should the modeler use?
C) Create CORBA component instances that can be used as Parts in a composite structure compartment.
A) Create a profile for the CORBA component technologies and apply it to the model.
B) Create a MOF metamodel for the CORBA component technology and add It to the UML metamodel.
D) Create a set of execution semantic definitions for the CORBA component assembly Connectors and apply them to the model.

OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 Exam - Topic 5 Question 11 Discussion

Actual exam question for OMG's OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 exam
Question #: 11
Topic #: 5
[All OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 Questions]

Choose the correct answer:

A modeler wants to develop a customization for a standard UML tool that provides the ability to specify CORBA physical Components.

Which approach should the modeler use?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

In fUML (Foundational UML), an execution model must be modeled as an Activity.fUML is a subset of UML that includes the ability to model behavior using UML activities, which are composed of a rich set of primitive actions1.Activities in fUML represent the executable aspects of a model and define the flow of control and data2. They are the primary means for specifying the detailed procedural logic of the behavior of a system within fUML.


by Hubert at Jun 24, 2024, 10:51 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Lyda
9 months ago
Wait, can you really just create instances like that? Sounds odd!
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephane
9 months ago
D seems too complicated for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tien
9 months ago
C sounds interesting, but is it really the best choice?
upvoted 0 times
...
Annabelle
10 months ago
I think B might be better for metamodeling.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gianna
10 months ago
A is definitely the way to go for profiles!
upvoted 0 times
...
Daryl
10 months ago
The execution semantic definitions for connectors seem important, but I’m unsure if that’s what the modeler should prioritize in this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josphine
10 months ago
I feel like using CORBA component instances in a composite structure could be a practical solution, but I’m not confident it’s the main focus of the question.
upvoted 0 times
...
Susana
10 months ago
I remember practicing with MOF metamodels, but I can't recall if adding it to the UML metamodel is the right move here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lilli
11 months ago
I think creating a profile for CORBA component technologies sounds familiar, but I'm not entirely sure if that's the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rocco
11 months ago
I'm a little confused by the options. Creating a MOF metamodel or CORBA component instances seems like overkill for just adding CORBA support to a UML tool. I think the profile approach is the most straightforward solution here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zena
11 months ago
Okay, I've got this. The question is asking about the right way to add CORBA component support to a UML tool. Based on my understanding, creating a UML profile is the way to go here, since it allows you to extend the standard UML metamodel without modifying it directly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mignon
11 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question mentions creating a customization, but it's not clear exactly what that entails. I'll need to think through the different UML extension mechanisms to figure out the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gregoria
11 months ago
This looks like a question about customizing a UML tool to work with CORBA components. I think the key is understanding the different ways to extend the UML metamodel to support new technologies.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yuette
11 months ago
Okay, let's see. I know that oversampling can skew the prevalence of the target class, so that might impact some of the metrics. I'll need to consider which ones are directly affected by the class distribution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Blair
11 months ago
The size of Tier 1 not being sufficient is a good possibility. I'll need to consider the workload characteristics and how the tiering is configured.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tonette
1 year ago
I bet the modeler is wishing they had a 'create CORBA component with a single click' feature. That would really streamline the process.
upvoted 0 times
Jenifer
1 year ago
C) Create CORBA component instances that can be used as Parts in a composite structure compartment.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yuki
1 year ago
B) Create a MOF metamodel for the CORBA component technology and add it to the UML metamodel.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hana
1 year ago
A) Create a profile for the CORBA component technologies and apply it to the model.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lenna
1 year ago
Option D is a bit too complex for my liking. Defining execution semantics for CORBA connectors? That's overkill, in my opinion.
upvoted 0 times
Glenn
1 year ago
C: Yeah, creating a profile for the CORBA component technologies sounds like a good idea.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jettie
1 year ago
B: I think option A might be a simpler and more practical approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Myra
1 year ago
A: I agree, option D does seem like a lot of unnecessary work.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Micaela
1 year ago
Hold up, what about Option C? Creating CORBA component instances as parts in a composite structure? That's an interesting approach, definitely worth considering.
upvoted 0 times
Zena
1 year ago
User 4: User Comment: Hold up, what about Option C? Creating CORBA component instances as parts in a composite structure? That's an interesting approach, definitely worth considering.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elli
1 year ago
User 3: Option C) Create CORBA component instances that can be used as parts in a composite structure compartment.
upvoted 0 times
...
Merissa
1 year ago
User 2: Option B) Create a MOF metamodel for the CORBA component technology and add it to the UML metamodel.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tuyet
1 year ago
User 2: I agree, using CORBA component instances as parts in a composite structure could be a good solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adrianna
1 year ago
User 1: Option A) Create a profile for the CORBA component technologies and apply it to the model.
upvoted 0 times
...
Howard
1 year ago
User 1: Option C does sound like a viable approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Sherly
1 year ago
I'm not sure about that. Option B sounds more robust - creating a MOF metamodel and integrating it with the UML metamodel could provide a more comprehensive solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Davida
1 year ago
Option A seems like the obvious choice here. Creating a CORBA profile for the UML tool is the most straightforward way to extend the modeling capabilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Portia
1 year ago
Why do you think option B is better?
upvoted 0 times
...
Val
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe option B is the correct approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Portia
1 year ago
I think the modeler should choose option A.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel