A course participant wrote to us with the following questions about flow ports in SysML:
1. Do you know if the exam still covers flow ports? Or has the focus shifted to the ports introduced in SySML v1.3? Are there any elements since v1.3 that may throw me for a ringer?
Answer: The exams were written back when SysML v1.2 was current. And they will not be revised until several years after SysML v2.0 is published, which is 2 years from now. So yes, flow ports are still on the exams.
2. In v1.3, since ports now operate as both standard and flow ports. How do you indicate whether a service is provided or required? Do standard port notations still apply? i.e Ball/Socket?
Answer: Same answer as to the question above. Standard ports and flow ports (as you learned them in the course) are still on the certification exams.
3. With the introduction of full ports, and seeing as they’re part properties on the boundary of a block. Does that eliminate the need for port delegation on IBDs?
Answer: Yes. The full port itself (as a part property) can perform behaviors directly. It does not need to delegate an incoming request to another part property. With that said, the full port (as a part property) could certainly be connected to another part property within the owning block—just as any part property could be connected to another (for whatever design reason you may have).
4. What exactly was the purpose for the atomic flow port? Isn’t it essentially just a non-atomic port typed by a flow specification with 1 flow property? Or am I missing something?
Answer: The two things you just described would be equivalent design decisions—expressed differently. So… what was the purpose for an atomic flow port? [shrug] To convey a connection point on the boundary through which exactly one type of matter, energy, or data flows. (If you wish to express the same idea with a nonatomic flow port typed by a flow specification with only 1 flow property…that’s a valid choice.)
