I am trying to understand the difference between these two concepts:
For subSystem, I have found a website: https://www.visual-paradigm.com/guide/uml-unified-modeling-language/what-is-component-diagram/
For the additive composition, on this website: https://cpentalk.com/618/illustrate-composition-hierarchical-composition-composition
people said
In the OnlineStore subsystem example, because OrderSystem component is calling the Catalogue component. For it to be an additive composition, should all the component inside be independent?
Can I say my example above is the additive composition because profile and bank_account are independent? I basically use some glueCode to combine their interface together so there is no component are dependent. Do you think it is a good example of the additive composition?
Subsystems and components
The UML defines the subsystem as a subpart of the system:
A unit of hierarchical decomposition for large systems. A subsystem is commonly instantiated indirectly. Definitions of subsystems vary widely among domains and methods, and it is expected that domain and method profiles will specialize this construct.
The UML defines a component as an autonomous subpart of the system/subsystem:
Component can always be considered an autonomous unit within a system or subsystem. (...) A Component is a self-contained unit (...) A Component is a substituable unit that can be replaced at design time or run-time by a Component that offers equivalent functionality based on compatibility of its Interfaces.
The subsystem is itself a component. So subsystem and component represent the same kind of reality. It's just subtle differences in the wording: subsystem is mainly used for decomposing larger systems in smaller parts, whereas component is often used for assembling smaller pieces in more complex parts. SO the different terms just suggest different levels of decomposition/scale in larger systems.
Component composition in UML
There are multiple ways of composing components to assemble more complex ones. UML does not define anything in this area. Your definition for additive composition seems to correspond to a juxtaposition: the two components are kept unrelated and offer their services to the outside world, as if they were separate components.
Unfortunately, your diagram is ambiguous in that regard: We don’t know for sure if the glue just forwards the behavior or if it transforms or combines it. We don’t even know if it’s the same interface, since the interface has a different name (the methods having the same name can be pure coincidence).
Accordingly, you should better provide the original interfaces to the outside world via a port and delegation connectors (example here):
Related
I would like to to create a sequence diagram to show some interaction, and then use that sequence diagram as an interaction occurrence (sub-sequence) on other sequence diagrams. The point is I would like to apply the sub-sequence each time to a different object instance that is involved in the interaction in the sub-sequence. In my case the instances are simply various file artifacts. Is there any legitimate way of doing this prescribed by UML?
EDIT: some more clarification of my context:
I have 2 main sequence diagrams where I want to reuse the sub-sequence as an interaction occurrence
on the 1st main sequence there is one file for which the sub-sequence has to be applied 3 times
on the 2nd main sequence there are 3 different files for which the sub-sequence has to be applied 3 times
the files are read by the same object instance
I model reading from a file by a call arrow stereotyped as <<read>> to a on object instance which represents the file.
I need to reference the file somehow in the sub-sequence, but I haven't found a good and simple way of doing this.
Complicated, but formally (almost) correct solution with Collaborations
Just using InteractionUses is not enough, because this doesn't allow you to assign the actual roles in the main interaction to the generic roles of your used interaction.
Collaborations, CollaborationUses and Role Bindings can be used for this.
See my example here:
This defines a Collaboration with generic roles sender, relay and receiver and shows the interaction between them.
You can now use this collaboration in a concrete situation:
Class S uses the Collaboration two times with different role bindings to its parts (A, B and C are assumed to be able to send and receive Sig1).
With these definitions you can now create your main sequence diagram:
Unfortunately, this is not correct UML, even though there is an example in the specification (I filed an Issue https://issues.omg.org/browse/UMLR-768). You will have to fake this notation until the taskforce comes up with a fix. How to fake it, depends on how strict your tool implements the specification.
Advantage: formally correct and versatile solution, backed by an example in the specification
Disadvantage: complicated and difficult to explain, not completely usable, because of a bug in the specification
Basically there are three different ways to specify such situations.
Using a gate. Whith gates you specify the sequence with messages that start or end at a gate that is defined and in most tools (if usable at all) not shown explicitly. Instead it is modelled with messages starting or ending at the interaction border.
Similar as gates are lost and found messages. These are special messages that pass out the control to another sequence or returns from one. Such as in the case before you can define a set of further diagrams specifying the interaction in more details.
Using abstraction, which is my favorit for most of the cases. This means you extract the common interface from the classes and specify the interaction against the interface instead of the concrete classes.
Use an Interaction with Parameters:
Now we would like to reference the Lifelines of the main Interaction in the arguments of the InteractionUse. Unfortunately, in UML this is not possible, since arguments are ValueSpecifications and they cannot reference another modelelement.
However, NoMagic suggested and implemented an additional ValueSpecification, called ElementValue, that does exactly this. I think this would be a valuable addition to UML and hopefully it will be added some day. Up to then, only MagicDraw users can use this solution (as far as I know).
With this non standard element, we can model this:
The connection between the lifelines is now via the arguments for the parameters of the generic interaction. Technically the lifelines would not need to be explicitely covered by the Interaction Use, but I think that it makes sense to do it (shown in my tool with a non standard circle on the border of the Interaction Use).
Advantage:
compact and versatile solution, almost conformant to the standard
Disadvantage:
uses a non standard model element, currently only available to MagicDraw users.
pragmatic non conformant solution with covered lifelines:
The collaboration and parameter solutions allow to specify it (almost) formally correct. However, in many cases, a simplified model would be sufficient. In your case, for example, you only have two participants and they have different types. So, even though there is no formal connection between the lifelines of the used interaction, and those of the main interaction, there would be no ambiguity. You could use the covered attribute of the InteractionUse to specify, which of the lifelines (files) you are targeting at a specific InteractionUse. Could that be the pragmatic solution, you are looking for?
Advantage:
compact solution
Disadvantage:
not conformant to UML, ambiguous in more complicated situations
When part of my solution is to use already built classes (for instance,Java's API classes) to promote reuse's principle, how do i represent these in uml diagrams like class, sequence and activity diagrams? Is it more common to represent them on diagrams or to ommit them?
Of course you have different options. But usually I create component elements representing libs (and APIs). Those components can either hold the classes they implement directly or you can associate them (e.g. via a <<realize>> relation). It's a good idea to attach lollipops and sockets to the component to show the implemented and required interfaces. The latter can also be used in sequence diagrams.
I would like to make a component diagram for a multiple robot coordination system.
I would like to show on the component diagram that the sub-component "Perception" of each "Robot" component communicates through an interface with each other. Indeed, the sensors of all robots are used in order to estimate the position/velocity of each robot, it is a cooperative sensing.
How can I do that ? Should I have an interface which would be both provided and required by the component "Robot" ?
Thanks.
For this type of system you are in position to use full power of UML and make really effective documentation. You will most likely need some (or all) of the following diagrams:
Component diagram - to show the "big picture" and the main parts of your system ant their interfaces and dependencies. Components are "black boxes" here and will be detailed in the following diagram
Composite structure - are perfect to open up the components and show their internal structure. You can take "black boxes" and their interfaces as kind of input to this work. Each component (except the external ones) should be modelled internally. This kind of diagrams lets you use the whole-part paradigm to model internal structure as a network of interconnected elements. Previously detected interfaces will be used here to show how they are actually implemented.
Class diagrams. If you need to further specify the elements of internal structure (their attributes, methods, associations, etc), this is the diagram to draw.
State machines. In embedded real-time systems, lots of classes are active and have states. Identify those classes (or even components) and use state diagrams to show their internal logic.
Sequences and interactions. These diagrams will help you to specify how different elements of your system work together to implement different scenarios.
Deployment diagram. As robot is a piece of hardware and these components run on it (or them, if there are more than one hardware node) you might want to show how the components are distributed over the hardware structure.
You could also have a look on timing diagram, relativelly new one, designed especially for real-time systems. It might come on handy if you need to express time restrictions, durations, etc.
If you are new to UML, I would recommend to start with components and deployment. They are relativelly easy to learn. As you feel understanding and need to express your ideas further, dive in the composite structure and states. And finally classes.
Have fun!
EXAMPLE
This is how I understand your model and its elements. This extends my comments.
Explanations are in comments and in the diagram notes.
A component diagram:
A component instances' diagram:
Note that the first diagram should be extended with the "connectivity rules" that define all valid connectivity possibilities. Is there only one CentralManager? Must each Robot be connected to CentralManager? Can a Robot talk to itself? And so on...
These and other questions should be modelled separatelly. On class diagrams benavior diagams, according to concrete details.
I have a CU that extends another CU, let's say: Add inventory extends Add product, so in one product interface I need to use fields from inventory CU, how I can described this in a CU?
"Extends" means that during the "execution" of the extended UC, execution of the extending UC has been voluntarily invoked by an actor. Each UC is described by several scenarios. Scenario is decribed as an ordered sequence of "steps".
You have to specify so called extension points - steps in the scenario(s) of the extended use case, in which the Actor can invoke the extending UC's execution. It can be a single step or a range...
You can think of the extension point as of a method with parameters, tmplemented in the extending UC and invoked by the extended UC. These parameters could be these fields, you need to "pass" to another interface.
In my projects I always "back up" the my case model with the domain model (class diagram) and use elements of it in the specification of the UCs (preconditions, postconditions, scenarios, extension points).
UPDATE (after the comment)
UML does not define the concrete format of the use case specification, it only defines the concepts and their semantic meaning. A UC can have so called Behavior, can extend another one (or be extended), has Extension points.
The way you define Behavior and Extension points are your own choice.
So, in my example:
Behavior of both UC is defined as a textual sequence of steps, as performed by System or User (alternative is a state machine, activity diagram, even user interface prototype)
Extension Point is defined as a step in the sequence and additionally described by this "method" signature, to illustrate the exchanged information
Remember that UCs show INTERACTIONS beetween the System and the outside world. For them is the System kind of black box. Conceptual model I've used here is therefore NOT a DB or system design, but rather a conceptual, implementation-agnostic view on the entities used by the app. They can even be mapped on 2 different systems on the implementation level!
Relationships between the UCs similarly exist purely on the user-system interaction level of abstraction, and DO NOT BY ANY MEANS reflect some internal system dependencies!
(note added after Gangnus's comment)
(Scenarios and concepts are fully invented for the example sake)
UML standard 2.5, p.680, definition:
An Extend is a relationship from an extending UseCase (the extension)
to an extended UseCase (the extendedCase) that specifies how and when
the behavior defined in the extending UseCase can be inserted into the
behavior defined in the extended UseCase. The extension takes place at
one or more specific extension points defined in the extended UseCase.
Extend is intended to be used when there is some additional behavior
that should be added, possibly conditionally, to the behavior defined
in a UseCase.
I wouldn't call what you are describing an extension. Inventory instance is a container that has Product instances as items. So, Add Inventory is a behaviour that depends on existent products, but not on ways of their adding. So, if you use correct OOP strategy, Add Inventory is absolutely independent on Add Product behaviour. They are both independent behaviours.
Yes, they work on structures, that are dependent and associated, but structures mostly are described in other diagrams. So, normally, these two behaviours are two different independent UCs.
On the other hand, according to standard, you can mix elements of different diagrams, and if you MUST show that intermediate dependency on UC diagram, you can draw there appropriate classes(Product and Inventory), connected by an association. Your use cases will be connected to these classes by arrow "dependency" - - - - - - >
Notice, that Use Case "add Product" and method "addProduct" in some class are absolutely different things. The first is behaviour, described in manual, with participation of user, and the second is a piece of code. The first is the task and the test for the second - that is a realization. So, beware, put classes into Use Cases only if you understand what you are doing VERY WELL, it is not the way for starters. Minimally, reread the Use Cases chapter of the UML standard before. Personally, I would show classes in separate classes diagram here. It is much more easy way.
I am new to UML. I have studied more tutorials.I learned two broad categories like,
UML Diagrams:
1. Structural Diagrams
Class diagram
Object diagram
Component diagram
Deployment diagram
2. Behavioral Diagrams
Use case diagram
Sequence diagram
Collaboration diagram
Statechart diagram
Activity diagram
But I dont know which one is high level design and low design. Anyone list out the UML diagram types based on priorities. (high-level diagrams to low level)
There is not really a well-defined order of higher-level versus lower-level diagram languages in UML. The same diagram language (e.g. class diagrams) can be used at different levels of abstraction. For instance, a conceptual information model, but also a Java data model, can be expressed as a class diagram.
Generally, a use case diagram is higher-level, since it describes requirements, while a deployment diagram is lower-level, since it describes system deployment structures.
But all other diagrams languages can be used at different levels of abstraction.
UML diagrams - from the most common to most detailed level.
Please, notice, that nowadays (the start of 2014) there are no special instrument for UI modelling. So, I'll explain how to do this part of work, too, with the tools we have. But they will be used in a less or more nonstandard way.
Human level. Use case diagrams and state machines. How people will work with the system.
Use cases are about what the system does, who works with it and maybe, grouping of those subjects. Subsystems can be defined here. Try not to show much structure or behaviour. Not to use any IT slang!
State machines show what states the system, subsystems and actors can have and what actions/events can happen in these states and to which other states can it lead. Not to use any IT slang!
Do not forget, that administrators, programmers and testers are users of the system, too. So, plan not only how the system helps to the work of the common user and his senior, but also to the installation/administration/testing/support processes. Don't forget to continue this work on all deeper diagraming levels. These use cases/state machines needn't be so human-oriented.
You can draw activities, sequence, timing diagrams for some dialogues between Actors and subsystems, if they are the part of the requirements. Or make them the part of requirements if they are important. Not to use any IT slang!
Draw the sketches for the UI and talk over them with client. The work on UI art design should be connected to UI planning and realization
Start to work on User Guide - create plan and structure. (I use class diagrams for that).
Deployment and component diagrams. Here you are starting to imagine the inner construction of your system
Components - What compact parts it has. It needn't have much in common with the subsystems, as user see them. Only some components are visible to the user. You could decide on the use of some interfaces between them. Think on the license problems of the third-party components.
Deployment - how the components could be distributed among PCs. The same question about interfaces, but more from the physical side.
A special deployment diagram for license politics of your product could be drawn, too. You can use other diagrams for it, as well. It is at your choice.
You could already plan your user interface by these diagrams, too. In MVC (model-viewer-controller) construction only the components of the controller level are mutually connected and obviously need this level modelling. But the viewer layer (UI) components are connected in a conceptual way, they should be, for the sake of user. So, it should be planned too, by the same diagrams.
On this level you also plan the architecture of the development environment. It consists of components, too.
Draw Interaction Overview and Communication diagrams to see the cooperation of components as a whole or in complex groups.
Package, activities, sequence, timing diagrams
Package diagrams are for planning the hierarchy of your code and mutual visibility of its parts. Don't forget the place for testing packages, too. Notice, that the structures of packages and components hierarchies are different, but they have to work together. It is very important part, frequently overlooked.
Use behavioral diagrams for better understanding how different processes could run.
System analysis - the class diagrams level.
Some important classes could appear on the previous level diagrams - as definitions of intercomponent interfaces or subjects of processes. But now you should do all of them. Minimally a diagram for a component. You should do these class diagrams, using ready package diagrams.
Plan the content of UI, defining elements and functonalities and connections between them WITHOUT choosing the concrete components. Use diagrams that you like. Class ones are usable, but in not standard reading.
Deeper insight
If you have instances with specific behavior, use Object diagrams for their planning.
If you have some very complex classes or their tight groups, use Composite Structure Diagrams.
UI: Plan the content of screen elements WITH choice of the UI components (frames, buttons and so on) and connecting functionalities to them. On this level you can again use class/object and sequence/timing diagrams.
Code. Really, the coding, at least on the prototype level starts already on the stage of component planning. You have to control if and how different technologies will cooperate. But the real coding should be done only after you are sure you understand what are you doing. And to create all or some correct diagrams is the best way to be sure in it.
Notice the rule of thumb - structure diagrams set the sequence of levels. Behavioral diagrams support them on all levels. You can use state machine on the lowest level and timing diagram for to discuss with a client. But try not to mix the levels with the structural diagrams!
Also, do not try to mix diagrams, especially behavioral with structural ones. You should clearly set the rules, by which you can say, what part of information can be on the diagram and what not. And break these rules really only in the most exceptional cases.
As gwag noted, there is no separation of UML diagrams into high and low levels. The different diagrams are used for describing different aspects, not different levels, of a (software) system.
But if you look at UML in a broader context, the Unified Modelling Language is just one of a whole family of modelling languages standardized by OMG. These different languages do have more specific scopes.
SysML (Systems Modelling Language) shares many features with UML and looks very similar, but is specifically intended for the higher levels of systems analysis / design. It also includes a visual representation of requirements, which are conspicuously absent from UML.
Another related language is BPMN (Business Process Model and Notation), which is used for business processes. So you could for instance use BPMN for business analysis, SysML for system design and UML for software design.
UML does not specify level of details you define in diagram. Every diagram can be used for description on business level, implementation or design level as well.
It is up to modeler, what type of diagram uses to descrbe modeled system. Information in diagrams must correspond with each other and all diagrams must give complet view on system.
For example, you can declare services of Bank company using UseCase on business level or use UseCase to declare services implemented by concret physical component of program writen in Java.