( 4 reviews )
-
( 5 of 12 found this review helpful ) Posted: Jan 5 2005
M. J. Graham correctly points out that the definition of postcondition is incorrect. This has been addressed. She also correctly notes that something is wrong with Figure 1-17; there was a problem in showing the box around PostingRule as a dashed outline, and I'm not sure why this was not corrected. However, I fail to see how these add up to 'so many glaring errors,' and I suggest that Ms. Graham forward notice of other errors she finds to APress for future correction. Mr. Ng, on the other hand, makes an assertion that is clearly false. The differences between the notations in Figure 1-13 are explained on the previous page; if he wishes to see an expression of which notation is 'better,' he'll have to find a different book. In the meantime, remarks such as 'sometimes you read it with lots of ambiguities come into your mind' is less than useful. With regard to the comment about how 'bad' it was written, I'll just say that at least I know proper grammar.
-
( 1 of 5 found this review helpful ) Posted: Dec 29 2004
In response to the comment "Too Many Errors to be Useful" dated August 19, 2004, I would like to further commenting how bad it was written. Not only it is too consise, sometimes you read it with lots of ambiguities come into your mind. Same as M. J. Graham, I stopped proceeding beyond half of the Chapter 1. Figure 1.13 shows two examples of provided interfaces, using both notations. The usage differences between the two notations are never addressed.
-
( 11 of 13 found this review helpful ) Posted: Aug 19 2004
I bought this book for its value as a "quick read" of UML 2.0, and as prep for the OMG UML Certification. I'm just on Chapter 1, and have found so many glaring errors so far that I suspect everything in the book has to be carefully read and re-read to identify the errors. Examples: page 12 - the definitions for "precondition: and "postcondition" are EXACTLY the same. Page 17 - the graphic does not support the text that the notation for aggregation and composition are different. I suspect that the book was rushed to publication without adequate proofreading, which is too bad because, other than the errors, it's very consice and read-able.
