I want to develop mobile applications, but I only focus on frontend development not on the backend.
I want to make a UML diagram, but I am confused about what to do, at this point I think I will make a use case diagram, a use case description, and an activity diagram. Do i need to add other diagram types like sequences or other? and if so what i need to make that diagram??
When drawing diagrams, you can draw them either from the entire system or just it's part perspective. Of course it is normal to use both approaches in a single project. It all depends what is your goal and what are you trying to model.
When looking at the FE, you can of course draw at least following diagrams:
Use case diagram to indicate what functions are offered by the FE. It will often be similar to UC diagram of the entire system, however it will definitely not contain the APIs exposed by the system for other systems to integrate as those are BE specific. Besides, you may have different front-ends (e.g. fat vs thin client), offering different functionalities
Activity diagram to show flow (e.g. screens' flow, e.g. per UC)
Class diagram to show data structures used by FE (they often differ to some level to the BE part, however usually are generated by the FE-BE integration layer)
Sequence diagram or Communication diagram to indicate points of integration with BE, especially in complex cases
Of course there can be much more, depending on your specific situation (e.g. timing diagram can be important in your specific case)
Having said that, take into account that you don't need to draw any diagrams. The idea of modelling is to draw those diagrams, that are needed, i.e. help grasp some ideas that may be otherwise be difficult to understand.
Related
Imagine that we are building a Library system. Our use cases might be
Borrow book
Look up book
Manage membership
Imagine that we can fulfill these use cases by a librarian person or a machine. We need to realize these use cases.
Should we draw different use case realizations for different flows?
If not, it is very different to borrow a book from a machine and a person. How can we handle it?
Moreover, what if we have updated version of library machines some day? (e.g. one with keyboard and the other is with touch screen) What should we do then? The flow stays the same, however the hardware and the software eventually be different.
What would you use to realize use cases and why?
It might be a basic question, but I failed to find concrete examples on the subject to understand what is right. Thank you all in advance.
There is no single truth or one way you "should" do it. I will give you my approach, based on the Unified Process.
The use case technique is primarily used to describe a dialog between a human user (actor) and an application. It is modeled as an ellipse and further specified as an activity diagram or just a list of steps: 1 The actor does A, 2 The system does B, 3 The actor does C etc. In this approach, the application is regarded as a black box.
A "use case realization" describes how the system performs its steps (white box), e.g. in terms of collaborating components, transparent to the user.
It is possible, but much less common, to have so-called business use cases. In that case, the "system" represents an enterprise or a business unit. In your case, it would be the library. The "actor" represents an external person or organization, e.g. a client or a supplier. In your case, it would be a client. With business use cases, the library is regarded as a black box. The steps are still in format "actor does A; system does B", but here, it is not specified which of the library's actions are performed by humans and which by applications. The system is the organization, interfacing with external actors, regardless of whether this is implemented by employees or by applications.
A "business use case realization" specifies how the system performs its steps (white box) and specifies which parts are done by employees and which parts by machines.
Now, let me answer you questions one by one.
Question 1.
If you have described your use case as a business use case, and it is at such a high level of abstraction that the steps for client-librarian interaction are the same as for client-machine interaction, then you will have one business use case "Borrow book" and two business use case realizations for this business use case.
However, it is more common practice to have only use cases for user-application interaction. If the client interacts with the system in the same way as a librarian would do on behalf of the client, then you will have only one use case "Borrow book", with actor "Person". This actor has two specializations: "Client" and "Librarian". There will be only one use case realization per use case.
Otherwise, you would have one use case "Borrow book online" describing the flow of events when a client interacts directly with the application, connected to actor "Client" and another use case "Borrow book for client" describing the flow of events when a librarian interacts with the application while talking to the client. The latter use case has "Librarian" as its actor. Again, there will be only one use case realization per use case.
You may choose to model the Client-Librarian interaction separately, or not at all, depending on the purpose of your model.
Question 2.
Let's take use case "Borrow book online". You may have two use case realizations for this use case: one for the keyboard machine and one for the touch screen machine. If these use case realizations are very similar, then I would just make only one use case realization and describe the fact that there are two possible input devices inside that single realization.
Question 3.
For a business use case realization, I would use BPMN 2.0 or a UML activity diagram. These are well suited for business workflow specification.
For a normal use case realization, I usually make a sequence diagram, where the lifelines in those diagrams refer to components defined in a common component diagram. In the left margin of the sequence diagrams, I usually write the steps of the use case in UML note symbols. The sequence diagram focuses on the interaction between components, using their interfaces. This gives a nice overview of the collaboration between components in the context of a particular use case.
For more information, please refer to my white paper Which UML models should we make?. The use case realization is described on page 19.
UML is method-agnostic. Even when there are no choices to make, there are different approaches to modeling, fo example:
Have one model and refine it succesfully getting it through the stages requirements, analysis (domain model of the problem), design (abstraction to be implemented), implementation (classes that are really in the code).
Have different models for different stage and keep them all up to date
Have successive models, without updating the previous stages.
keep only a high level design model to get the big picture, but without implementation details that could be found in the code.
Likewise, for your question, you could consider having different alternative models, or one model with different alternatives grouped in different packages (to avoid naming conflicts). Personally, I’d go for the latter, because the different alternatives should NOT be detailed too much. But ultimately, it’s a question of cost and benefits in your context.
By the way, Ivar Jacobson’s book, the Object advantage applies OO modeling techniques to business process design. So UML is perfectly suitable for a human solution. It’s just that the system under consideration is no longer an IT system, but a broader organisational system, in which IT represents some components among others.
UML has collaboration elements to show different implementations. The use cases are anchors since the added value for the actors does not change. However, you can realize these use cases in different ways. And that is where the collaborations come into play. A collaboration looks like a use case but has a dashed border. And you draw a realize relation from one or many collaborations towards a use case. Inside the collaborations you show how the different implementation's classes collaborate (hence the name).
P.213 of UML 2.5 in paragraph 11.7 Collaborations:
The primary purpose of Collaborations is to explain how a system of communicating elements collectively accomplish a specific task or set of tasks without necessarily having to incorporate detail that is irrelevant to the explanation. Collaborations are one way that UML may be used to capture design patterns.
A CollaborationUse represents the application of the pattern described by a Collaboration to a specific situation involving specific elements playing its collaborationRoles.
I discuss with my friend our project and we are in a way to draw the sequence diagram ( UML 2).
He told me that the sequence diagram is drawn by the use case. It means that for each use case we should draw a Sequence Diagram.
Is it correct ?
Thank you for any suggestion.
Well, taken as dogma it is not correct. A sequence diagram (SD) shows the behavior of objects in the way they interchange messages (and also if needed their lifetime and some minor additional information). You "can" also use a sequence diagram to describe scenarios in use cases. But simply speaking, a SD is more technically oriented (class design/programmers) rather than business (business design/stakeholders). To visualize a use case scenario you're better off using activity diagrams (AD). And even better if you dive into BPMN (which brings ADs to a new level).
It is possible though, to convert ADs to SDs and vice versa without information loss (if you forget about the afore mentioned bits and pieces).
Now another point: you will not necessarily need a diagram for each use case. I found that often use cases are more easily (and even clearly) described in a textual way (see Cockburn or Bittner/Spence) rather than diagrammatically. Especially if you have UC scenarios that are very linear in their single actions. So you can leave out the AD for those and just fall back to simple text. You should further avoid describing UC scenarios in both ways (i.e. text and diagram) as this introduces unwanted redundancy (means you would need to maintain always both when changes happen; and they happen often; and people are lazy -> so which one holds the truth: text or diagram?).
Generally, as Thomas points out, use case detail is set forth in an activity diagram. As he also mentions, a use case scenario would use a sequence diagram, when necessary. A use case scenario is a single path through a use case.
Sequence diagrams aren't good at diagramming multiple simultaneous behaviors and multiple decision points, and use cases generally have both of these features in their behavior. Activity diagrams do these things very well. A single path through a use case, by definition, doesn't have simultaneous behaviors and decision points, so a sequence diagram is more appropriate.
Googling "use case scenario sequence diagram" gives a number of links that explain the use of sequence diagrams for use case scenarios in detail, of which this is an example.
UseCase is declaration of behavior (service or usefull behavior) of system which is executed by system with collaboration (interaction) with system's actors.
Any type of diagram defined in UML could by used to describe behavior on any level of abstraction. All of diagrams could be also used to describe both business or technical aspects of system.
UseCase is declaration of behavior, it means that UseCase does not define behavior at all. UML does not define scenarios of UseCase ,scenarios are usually defined in methodology not in UML.
If you need to describe behavior of system in context of UseCase you can use some of behavior diagrams defined in UML for each UseCase.
Should activity diagram include detailed information about how the system functions from the start of the application?
Say for example i am making a swing application in which the app loads a JList with images when the application opens, so should i specify that in activity diagram even though user isn't himself performing the task of loading the images in the JList.
Also should swimlanes in activity diagram be divided according to the possible classes my swing application might have.
For example having 1 swimlane for model, view and controller each in a simple swing application.
Below are the Image's that I made,
OR
I feel that even though the first image is correct,the second one helps me visualize how the class diagram is going to shape up in a much better way.
So should I use the second Image?
As always, the answer is "it depends." The level of detail is not dictated by the type of diagram, but the context in which the diagram is used.
If the diagram is intended to show the flow through a use case, it should probably restrict itself to showing the activities performed by the actor(s) and the system as a whole, rather than the parts of the system.
If on the other hand the activity diagram shows the flow through a use case realization, it should definitely show the different parts of the system.
Let's say that halfway through the project you decide to change the design and not use MVC. This means the diagram needs to be redrawn. If the diagram is part of a use case realization, that's to be expected (because that's what you've done, you've decided to realize the use case in a different way). But a diagram that's part of the use case itself shouldn't need to be redrawn just because you've changed the design; the flow of interactions between the actor(s) and the system-as-a-whole shouldn't change.
That said, MVC is such a well-known way of breaking down a user interaction that it may be permissible to go to that level of detail even in a use case. So, assuming that you're documenting a use case and not a realization, if in your project or company user interactions are always designed as MVC, then I say go right ahead -- but keep it strict and use "model" rather than "image service". If the decision to use an MVC design cannot be taken during the use case analysis phase, I'd advise against it.
Swim-lanes have absolutely no model meaning. They are just a line. I recommend to use pools/lanes which are (BPMN stereotyped) UML elements. They are classified accordingly (usually with an actor) and the single actions go into each of those. This gives the activity a clear structure and it also shows responsibilities.
Firstly, I'm still quite new to UML; but, highly interested and am attempting to learn as much about it as I can.
With that said, I’m in a situation where I’m directed to assemble a ‘Context Diagram’. I feel as though I understand the concept of what a context diagram is and how to create one, so I think I’m ok there. Basically it is identifying the system and the components or actors it will interact with. It applies the focus on the system, and not the actors. Kind of like a Use case diagram, but not focusing on the actors. If I’m wrong, please tell me.
I read somewhere that Context Diagrams are not actually part of UML. I also read, somewhere, that, if you use a Context Diagram, it falls into the Component side of things. When I read about Domain models, it seems like it should be there.
For my current situation, I know a simple answer is to simply create the diagram and move on, as that is all that is required. But, for my interest to better understand and leverage UML, I know there is a right way and a wrong way. If I were in a case of a bigger project, what would be the right way?
Now here is where my question begins. I’m using Enterprise Architect, create my project, and start to create a model. Does it belong in a Domain Model or Component Model? What is the difference between these two? Or even more. As it is an aide to help identify requirements, should it go there? Or does is just simply depend on what and how I want to convey it?
The Domain Model is where you standardize the vocabulary that everyone on the project will use to communicate in a consistent manner. The development team are experts at software development, but they may not have any experience in the domain (e.g. banking, air traffic control, healthcare) in which they are being asked to work. So you get domain experts and modelling experts together to build a model that describes the domain, answering important questions like "how are account fees calculated?" and "how does a pilot know what route to follow?" and then this model is then passed to the development team to provide them with the important domain knowledge that they will need. I would use UML class diagrams to create a domain model.
A Context Diagram shows the system being modeled in relationship to external systems. It could show data flowing in from and out to external systems, modeled by a data flow diagram (not part of UML). It could show behavioral interactions between the system and external "actors", modeled by a UML use case diagram. It could show the system's physical connections to other systems, modeled by a SysML block diagram. Whichever you choose, it will be on page 1 of your design document, so choose wisely!
You (can) create context diagram by making any element composite. Then drag the element itself onto that diagram as link (not instance!) and highlight it by making the border a bit thicker. Finally insert related elements from the context menu (differs from EA version to version). Layout the diagram and now you have your element in the context.
A domain model is usually a class diagram showing the (business) domain on a higher abstraction level.
As you have said, Context Diagrams per se are not part of the UML spec. There are plenty of ways to do a context diagram, but the UML way is to use a Use Case diagram, with or without supporting narratives and scenarios. Start with this, which is a broad overview of different types of Context Diagrams. Then, investigate use case diagrams, use case narratives, and activity diagrams. If you need to go into more detail than a use case narrative can easily do, get into use case scenarios and sequence diagrams. Here is a pretty good use case narrative template (feel free to leave out sections such as "scope and level" if they are more than you need, and consider adding information about what triggers the use case and where you go when you finish it--these two are required for scenarios if you go that far).
Keep in mind that use case narratives and use case scenarios are often confused. (Some people will say that I am the confused one; I will invite you to judge the matter for yourself.) A narrative is an explanation of an entire (single) use case, and may be supported with an activity diagram. A scenario is an explanation of a single path through a single use case, and may be supported with a sequence diagram.
For example, a use case will generally have a basic flow of events, along with a number of alternate flows. The narrative describes the entire process. The basic flow and each alternate flow would each be a separate use case scenario.
I suspect that it's unlikely that you will have to get down to the level of use case scenarios. You will probably want to put a use case diagram together, and possibly prepare narratives and activity diagrams for each of the use cases in the diagram.
According to UML context diagram context diagram doesn't exists.
So my question is which one of UML diagrams is good to show something like this and how to paint this?
I've just found the following definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_context_diagram
That's probably what you need. :)
A context diagram defines a boundary between the system, or part of a system, and its
environment, showing the entities that interact with it.
There is no single diagram in UML that would map to this definition, but I have some good news - there are several diagrams (out of total of 14) that can show the frontier between the system and its surrounding world from different perspectives. This is much more flexible than only a context diagram.
First of all, I would mention a special UML element - a boundary. It can be used in any diagram type to show some kind of delimitation. You might want to optionally use it to visually delimit between the system and its environment, especially in situations when this is not explicit.
The following diagrams can show the boundary between the system and its environment:
Use case diagram (your example) support the context explicitly on the functional level. Use cases are elements of the system under development, while the actors are extern entities (systems or human users). Before mentioned boundary is often used to visually delimit between the system and its environment.
Component diagram is used to model some kind of software modules (applications, DBs, external systems, libraries, etc). You can use it to show both internal and external components and the way they interact. A boundary can be used to clearly draw the separation line.
Activity diagram can show your system/business/usage processes. Some activities can be performed internally, others externally. Here you don't need the boundary, but the so called swimlanes to depict who does what.
Sequence/collaboration diagrams are another option. They show the communication sequences between several objects. If you split those objects in internal and external ones and wrap them up with the boundaries, there is another context diagram. :)
UML is flexible, there are probably further options, but I think this is enough to get the idea.
Names of your association are services. UseCase in center of diagram is context of services definition. See usecase diagram:
It could be done with a use case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_case
EDIT:
Reconsidering it, use case diagram should be the next step once the operations are defined so first you shouls make a system sequence diagram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_sequence_diagram
If you're happy with going into the not complete superset of UML that is SysML, you can have proper Context diagrams there.
However, context diagrams in SysML are simply Block Diagrams showing system context… and Block Diagrams happen to be the same as UML2 Class diagram, where the classes are of stereotype «SysML::Block».
So you can define your context diagram in terms of aggregation of blocks to your system, with the relevant stereotypes, basing it on UML2 Class diagrams.
I tend to use collaboration diagrams for this. So for each major scenario of each use case, draw a collaboration diagram showing the actors, with the application as a single entity in the middle, and messages travelling around that show how the application interacts with the actors in order to fulfil the scenario.
(I don't put too much detail in the messages -- I only want to show that there is a delegation of responsibility and some kind of interaction, but I don't care about details of actual messages, views, data etc.)
I find the context diagram does have a particular appeal. It sits well with business users, showing them the scope & parties of a system in a very easy way. So, I tend to create a context diagram, even in contexts where UML is prevalent.