I am in the process of migrating applications from desktop to web. To migrate I need to reverse engineer to get functional requirements using the case. The application to be migrated does not have documentation. Can I make use cases based on menus on the application? example of the use case of the farmacy menu or the use case menu laboratory
Not really. Or at least you should not try it that way. Use cases are about the added value a system delivers to its actors. You can guess it partially from the menus. But only partially. The only thing you can get from the GUI is some kind of wire framing for classes representing the V in MVC. That's already way beyond use cases.
Related
What type of UML diagram should I use to model the parts of a web app?
For instance, lets say my parts are as followed:
Server
Database
Web App
Multiple APIs
The web app interacts with all the other parts in some way. From my research, the best options seem to be either component, deployment, or sequence.
Here's a general idea that I'm going for with my diagram, but I do not know which UML diagram this would best be represented in.
If you know the diagram I should use, I would like to know how each part is represented in the diagram. For example, in a deployment diagram, I know that a server/database would be nodes. And, APIs would possible be artifacts?
For designing a web app (or any other type of software application), following a best practice Model-View-Controller (MVC) codebase architecture, you first need to make an information design model, typically in the form of a UML class diagram, defining the model classes, or the "model", of your app. The "view" (or user interface) of your app is based on the model.
Your diagram attempts to model the deployment architecture of your app. But this question comes after choosing a codebase architecture and an information architecture.
You can find more explanations about the architecting process, and the code of several example web apps, in my book Web Applications with JavaScript or Java, which is also available as an open access online book.
This depends a lot on what you're wanting to model and communicate. All of the diagram types you mention would be useful ways to describe a web app. Each focuses on a different aspect of the web app -- component models are about software component structure (database, web app, apis), deployment models show how instances of these components are deployed into deployment nodes (servers, devices etc). Like Thomas says, this is a very broad question -- in essence you are asking how should you describe your web app's solution architecture which is not a trivial exercise. Is there something more specific I can help with -- can you narrow down what it is you want to show about your app?
Your start with the component diagrams is fine. Generally your question is too broad to be answered here, but a few bread crumbs anyway:
In a next step you can describe the single components which are hosted inside the single nodes. You can make the nodes navigable (means you have a composite diagram showing their guts) so you can place component instances showing their interfaces. The latter can be shown with either lollipops or as stereotyped classes which the single components implement. Following that you can break down components in a similar fashion showing how the components are implemented with various classes and how these realize the single interfaces. It's possible to show the interfaces outside the components and <<delegate>> them inside the specific classes.
The story goes on, but it's too big to be told here.
We have an oracle forms application, and one of the many thoughts (considered converting to non-oracle-form technology) was to use JHeadStart (oracle product) that converts the oracle forms to ADF application. But we would like to not use ADF, so is there any way that we can remove the dependency on ADF?
If anyone feels this is not the question to ask, instead of giving me -ve marks please comment me and I will remove this question.
Thanks.
As always, it depends on what you want to achieve. I don't know JHeadStart, but to me, it sounds like a tool converting a legacy application to a framework that might be considered legacy soon. There are a few supporters of ADF, so I believe it's a good thing if you're ready to live with the compromises a full-stack framework brings. But in general, ADF is not popular among JSF developers (mostly because of those compromises, which often turn out to be too restrictive). Even more generally speaking, JSF is not popular among UI developers. That, in turn, is a bit unfair, but I observe a huge movement to pure JavaScript UI frameworks.
This indicates that using a tool like JHeadStart isn't the most future-proof approach. It's (probably) good to survive the next month, but in the long run, it'll probably backfire.
Let's have a look at the question from another angle. Why do you want to get rid of Oracle forms? Most likely, it's because of recruiting problems, but it might also have something to do with architecture. Oracle Forms supports a programming style integrating the database layer tightly with the UI layer. That's a very efficient way to write small applications, but it scales badly if your application grows.
So I'd recommend spending some extra money and time to re-implement your application from scratch. Automated tools tend to generate code that's hard to maintain. Re-designing your application from scratch gives you the opportunity to build an application that lasts a decade.
Oh, and I don't think it's possible to use JHeadStart without introducing ADF. Simply because JHeadStart has been designed with ADF in mind.
I'm trying to develop a web-app and some desktop apps, all of these apps communicates via database or socket tcp. These desktop apps are running in background so, there is no use cases and the web-app is only used by remote users.
And, these desktop apps communicates with the web-app via the DB and vis versa.
Which UML diagrams may help me to conceptualize the work of the desktop apps, please?
I've tried to conceptualize this thing using the deploiement diagram, but, I think that it's unsufficient to explain the whole work in a report. Isn't it ?
Thanks a lot!
If you read up on the theory of use case diagrams and actors, you will see that an actor (something that interacts with a use case) can be a person or another system.
In this case, since your app is running in the background, is must be triggered by something: by a person or by a job scheduler (=a system). That means that the triggering is done by an actor, since an actor can be a person or another software system.
So that means you have a use-case (your app) and an actor (scheduler or person). In that way your background app can be described as a use case in a use-case diagram, together with the rest of your system.
As Rolf Schorpion told, you can still use use case diagrams with systemic actors. Just make sure that actor is something external to the system (or part of the system). A typical actor can be Timer (if it is time-controlled).
Besides there is a plenty of UML-diagrams you can use. From the short desctiption you posted, I'd recommend the following set of diagrams (at least these are the diagrams I'd asked you to prepare in order to better understand the system you briefly described):
Mandatory:
Component diagram - showing structural organization of your system and their dependencies (desktop app, WEB app, DB are components)
Deployment diagram - showing the network organization, servers and how the previously defined components are actually deployed on server nodes
Sequence diagram(s) - showing the important communication scenarios between the components. You mentiones TCP, so this can be further refined and displayed using one or more sequence diagrams. It there is a standard communication pattern, a single sequence can be enough. Otherwise, several sequences can be used to cover all significant communucation scenaria
Optional:
Class diagrams - to specify internal components structure - design (blue print of the source code). I recommend this one only if there is a complex design in each compoennt, worth this effort. If not, it could be costly to keep the model in sync with the actual code.
State disgrams - if a class of componen show a behavior that could be modelled as a set of discrete states (e.g. ON, OFF, IN REPAIR, OUT OF ORDER), this diagram is very powerfull and highly recommendedn
Activity diagram - if you have some interesting non-trivial algorithms or simply want to show an overall system logic in terms of sequenced tasks, use activita diagrams.
These are the most common UML diagrams. Besides you have a couple of them more that couls be used in some special conditions (timing for example), but I'm sure you can model almost everything using only these. Use case is far from the first choice for UML modelling.
If you have some further questions or doubts, just ask.
I'm in the beginning phases of a Blackberry/J2ME project -- and along with other limitations that come with this wonderful platform, the lack of support for reflection and 1.3 language level mean that the vast majority of existing IoC containers are unusable. (Google has Guice for Android with no AOP, but even that requires support for annotations).
So the space of IoC containers on J2ME is pretty limited. The one framework that has caught my attention is called Signal Framework, and it looks pretty promising. It tries to stay conceptually close to Spring Framework's IoC, implementing a small subset of its functionality, and does so without relying on bytecode-modification or causing runtime xml parsing. Instead, it processes configuration XMLs at build-time to generate java code which implements this IoC functionality.
Generally speaking, code generation at build time seems like a very wise approach for mobile applications -- and if my app has to do less XML parsing on user's device, that's great too!
So, what have your experiences been with implementing IoC on J2ME/CLDC, and how were you able to extinguish that bitter taste in your mouth?
We used Spring ME at TomTom. It worked out pretty well.
In J2ME you need to reduce the number of classes you use as much as possible to reduce the size of jar files. This leads to many design compromises not least of which is flexibility.
It is not easy to adjust to J2ME development when you have to throw must of what you hae learnt (and come to value highly) about OO out the window. The truth is if you want apps that can run on a large range of phones you need to be very sensitive to the constraints of the devices.
As such I do not think an IoC framework will match many people's needs for J2ME development.
You might be interested in checking out FallME. Even though I haven't used it personally, it seems like a no non-sense framework built specifically for the J2ME platform.
I came across Spring ME during a Dutch JUG conference (have no experience with it whatsoever).
Signal Framework it is.
Update: unfortunately, Signal is very undercooked right now, so I'm going with Israfil IOC with custom additions.
I just started getting into BizTalk at work and would love to keep using everything I've learned about DDD, TDD, etc. Is this even possible or am I always going to have to use the Visio like editors when creating things like pipelines and orchestrations?
You can certainly apply a lot of the concepts of TDD and DDD to BizTalk development.
You can design and develop around the concept of domain objects (although in BizTalk and integration development I often find interface objects or contract first design to be a more useful way of thinking - what messages get passed around at my interfaces). And you can also follow the 'Build the simplest possible thing that will work' and 'only build things that make tests pass' philosophies of TDD.
However, your question sounds like you are asking more about the code-centric sides of these design and development approaches.
Am I right that you would like to be able to follow the test driven development approach of first writing a unti test that exercises a requirement and fails, then writing a method that fulfils the requirement and causes the test to pass - all within a traditional programing language like C#?
For that, unfortunately, the answer is no. The majority of BizTalk artifacts (pipelines, maps, orchestrations...) can only really be built using the Visual Studio BizTalk plugins. There are ways of viewing the underlying c# code, but one would never want to try and directly develop this code.
There are two tools BizUnit and BizUnit Extensions that give some ability to control the execution of BizTalk applications and test them but this really only gets you to the point of performing more controled and more test driven integration tests.
The shapes that you drag onto the Orchestration design surface will largely just do their thing as one opaque unit of execution. And Orchestrations, pipelines, maps etc... all these things are largely intended to be executed (and tested) within an entire BizTalk solution.
Good design practices (taking pointers from approaches like TDD) will lead to breaking BizTalk solutions into smaller, more modular and testable chunks, and are there are ways of testing things like pipelines in isolation.
But the detailed specifics of TDD and DDD in code sadly don't translate.
For some related discussion that may be useful see this question:
Mocking WebService consumed by a Biztalk Request-Response port
If you often make use of pipelines and custom pipeline components in BizTalk, you might find my own PipelineTesting library useful. It allows you to use NUnit (or whatever other testing framework you prefer) to create automated tests for complete pipelines, specific pipeline components or even schemas (such as flat file schemas).
It's pretty useful if you use this kind of functionality, if I may say so myself (I make heavy use of it on my own projects).
You can find an introduction to the library here, and the full code on github. There's also some more detailed documentation on its wiki.
I agree with the comments by CKarras. Many people have cited that as their reason for not liking the BizUnit framework. But take a look at BizUnit 3.0. It has an object model that allows you to write the entire test step in C#/VB instead of XML. BizUnitExtensions is being upgraded to the new object model as well.
The advantages of the XML based system is that it is easier to generate test steps and there is no need to recompile when you update the steps. In my own Extensions library, I found the XmlPokeStep (inspired by NAnt) to be very useful. My team could update test step xml on the fly. For example, lets say we had to call a webservice that created a customer record and then checked a database for that same record. Now if the webservice returned the ID (dynamically generated), we could update the test step for the next step on the fly (not in the same xml file of course) and then use that to check the database.
From a coding perspective, the intellisense should be addressed now in BizUnit 3.0. The lack of an XSD did make things difficult in the past. I'm hoping to get an XSD out that will aid in the intellisense. There were some snippets as well for an old version of BizUnit but those havent been updated, maybe if theres time I'll give that a go.
But coming back to the TDD issue, if you take some of the intent behind TDD - the specification or behavior driven element, then you can apply it to some extent to Biztalk development as well because BizTalk is based heavily on contract driven development. So you can specify your interfaces first and create stub orchestrations etc to handle them and then build out the core. You could write the BizUnit tests at that time. I wish there were some tools that could automate this process but right now there arent.
Using frameworks such as the ESB guidance can also help give you a base platform to work off so you can implement the major use cases through your system iteratively.
Just a few thoughts. Hope this helps. I think its worth blogging about more extensively.
This is a good topic to discuss.Do ping me if you have any questions or we can always discuss more over here.
Rgds
Benjy
You could use BizUnit to create and reuse generic test cases both in code and excel(for functional scenarios)
http://www.codeplex.com/bizunit
BizTalk Server 2009 is expected to have more IDE integrated testability.
Cheers
Hemil.
BizUnit is really a pain to use because all the tests are written in XML instead of a programming language.
In our projects, we have "ported" parts of BizUnit to a plain old C# test framework. This allows us to use BizUnit's library of steps directly in C# NUnit/MSTest code. This makes tests that are easier to write (using VS Intellisense), more flexible, and most important, easier to debug in case of a test failure. The main drawback of this approach is that we have forked from the main BizUnit source.
Another interesting option I would consider for future projects is BooUnit, which is a Boo wrapper on top of BizUnit. It has advantages similar to our BizUnit "port", but also has the advantage of still using BizUnit instead of forking from it.