The interface ISprintsDataModel indicates that its implemented class will be dependent on theSprint class. Should I draw the ISprintsDataModel interface dependency on theSprint class, or is it dependent only on MySqlSprintsDataModel?
If I get you right and the interface is dependent on Sprint you shall draw the dependence right on that interface. Currently only the name suggests that they are somehow related. But having the dependency shown it will be absolutely clear that once you change Sprint you have to look at the interface as well.
Related
I'm struggling at understanding UML component diagram.
I've just been through the "assembly connectors" and here's what I (think I) understood:
the circle represents an interface, which I understand as a set of functions that a component can offer to the others.
the half-circle... well, don't know how to call it, but it says something like "there's some functions I need in order to operate correctly". In the image, I guess that an order must have access to functions that return details of the Customer (e.g: methods GetName(), GetAddress(), etc.), that's why it has the assembly connection with the Customer Details interface, provided by Customer.
My question is: why is there a dependency relationship arrow from the interface which Account provides (AccountDetails) and the interface which Order requires (Payment)?
The link of this image doesn't explain it.
The assembly connector (two shown on top) is a kind of provisional concept. You know that there should be an interface used instead, but have not yet made up the details. This is a connector which looks like socket/lollipop. But it's a connector.
The separate lollipop/socket are concrete interface uses. These are real elements. The interface itself is not actually shown (you will have a separate diagram showing the details). But to make clear that the depending interface is related to the providing one you draw a dependency.
Simply spoken, the above is something in the middle of a design phase. Finally all assemlies should be replaced by provided/required interfaces.
I'm working on a project where I'm using an SDK that provides things I need via some classes. I've named these ProviderProvider and Provider, that grant access to OneThing that is an IThing.
An example is shown here
.
My question is: What is the correct (or best) way to show that the Model provides the list of OneThings to the View through those classes?
Do you show this explicitly as in my example, by drawing a dependency arrow from Model to OneThing? That doesn't seem right to me and quickly becomes visually cluttered.
Do you not explicitly define that relationship, but is it simply implicitly defined through the other relationships?
Do you define that relationship semi-explicitly through attributes, notes or some other way?
What relations and attributes should I add/remove specifically and why?
You already have the implicit relationship since you use this class as a type of data returned by Model so you do not need to add that relationship explicitly.
It may be useful though, especially for classes that are core in the system, to add a diagram with dependencies only. Then you don't care about relationships between other classes, you only show on one diagram all classes that depend on the core one (it may be even more than one diagram).
One hint - in Case tool (like EA) even if you don't intend to show the relationship on the diagram since it is indicated implicitly it is still good to create the explicit dependency and just remove the arrow. This will support the traceability through tools like traceability matrix or dependency tree.
Please see the diagram below for this question...
I am trying to make a UML class diagram of an interface (IView) that has a method (abstract) that takes as a parameter a reference to a class (Card) in another package. I found a stackoverflow post that suggested that in UML, this should be expressed as "IView 'uses' Card" (Apologies, but I do not have the reference and I cannot re-locate it currently).
IView is implemented by two classes, and each of those concrete classes "uses" Card (of course). In the diagram, do I also need to express the "uses" relationship between the concrete classes and Card (not shown below)?
This isn't a too bad attempt. The top dependency is almost correct. You named the dependency Use but that's futile. You can just leave away that name. You could make it a use-dependency by adding the key word «use» but that's not needed. Just leave it a simple dependency.
Similarly the lower dependencies where the name Implements is futile. Anyhow, these should be realize relations. Use a closed triangle instead of the open arrow. And it's not necessary to name it either.
Finally you should just drag the attribute field into iView since it seems that this is a common attribute for the views (here I'm just guessing).
tl;dr
There is no need to draw a dependency from from the classes at the bottom to the top one.
I have a .lib file containing internal C++ classes and a few C++ classes are interfaces to the functionality that software library provides.
How should I illustrate this with UML?
Using Enterprise Architect, I tried type 'Component' (pasted to the component diagram as simple link) and then dragged and dropped the internal classes of that library from the model tree to that component rectangle as element type Composite part, and the interface classes of that library as Port. Now the weird thing is what happened the model tree contains kind of object instances of that classes called Part1 and Port1 of UML type 'class', which is nonsense since a software library don't instantiate, it just provides its classes via .lib file, like a pool. I think UML element type 'component' is not the right thing here, is it?
The same happens if I use 'Package', also here parts and ports become things like object instances although classes in a library are not.
Following my comment to the O/P, I'd do something like the below. Please note that I'd probably not depict all of this on the same diagram, the class content of the package for example I might present on a separate diagram so that this is not so cluttered. But the logic is the same.
Update: Following commentary below I've added the this diagram which illustrates an alternative way of representing this. I think in some cases I've seen the delegation represented as a dependency rather than a reference association too. But hey ho. Internally, components are represented as interacting between each other via required/provided interfaces (though this is not shown as in the model below we only have one internal component illustrated).
It's not weird. You happened to drop a class as Part (in EA terms).
That's actually a Property. Just open its properties:
See UML 2.5 on p. 147:
9.9.17 Property [Class]
9.9.17.1 Description
A Property is a StructuralFeature. A Property related by ownedAttribute to a Classifier (other than an association) represents an attribute and might also represent an association end. ...
I'd probably just drop them as link to appear as class inside the enlarged component, YMMV
A class dropped as port will show as what the name said. So no confusion here. Anyway, I'd also drop it consistently as link to show just the contents. Further I'd probably stereotype the component itself with <<lib>> or the like. That's because you actually use a lib during compile time to extract the needed parts and it does not work as component by itself. A library though has an interface, namely to extract the compiled class modules it has inside.
Ah, and as #muszeo said: use ctrl-drag to show the above dialog.
I defined my software system using EA. I stayed mainly at the high level so far. The software interfaces between my components are represented as Structural Elements "Provided Interface" (the little purple bullets) and "Required Interface" (the little sockets).
Now, I would like to go a little bit further into the details, and define the API corresponding to each of these Provided Interfaces, ideally as a class diagram. It would be perfect if I were able to create a nested composite structure diagram for each of these Provided Interfaces, like for software components for example. But it seems that EA does not enable that.
What I do is that I create an Interface nested in my software component, then I link the Required Interface (the purple bullet) to my Interface (purple square) with a Dependency link. Then I can create a nested composite structure diagram in my Interface. But I doubt this is the optimal method.
Can someone tell me what is the "EA-approved" way of defining Required Interfaces ?
Thank you :)
You can directly select the Interface in the ProvidedInterface or RequiredInterface without needing to explicitly create a Realize or Dependency connector to the target interface.
You can do this as shown in the figures below:
One advantage of this is that you do not have to show the actual target interface on the same diagram as the components while still being able to navigate to them. This becomes handy when you have components that provide or require many interfaces (and you do not want to clutter your diagram). With this approach you can use the Find | Locate Classifier in Project Browser context menu and directly jump to the composite diagram.