I'm working on sequence & class diagram for education website, should all objects in sequence diagram be a class in Class diagram?
For example in sequence diagram for registration process I need an object called "Data Base" which needed for saving information of user, should "Date base" be a class in class diagram? and what can be its functions? Is it just load & save?
I think it depends on the level of formality, abstraction, and the purpose of your UML model.
Martin Fowler talks about UML as Sketch, UML as Blueprint, and UML as Programming Language.
The terminology has gotten some good usage; and I think 'UML as Sketch' in particular has emerged as a popular mode, with the goal of human-to-human communication about the design of a system; not necessarily a formal engineering specification (i.e. a blueprint), nor suitable as an input to a code generator (i.e. a programming language).
If you want to use UML in Sketch mode, which is perfectly valid, then it's not a requirement for your sequence diagrams to use only the classes defined in your class diagram. In fact, some of the objects/lifelines in a sequence diagram aren't class instances at all:
They may be "actors" defined in a use case diagram (or not). Actors are often people, and as such are represented as stick figures. "End user" is a common actor to include in a sequence diagram. Plenty of examples here.
They may be external systems, like a database, that are not defined in your class model. Your system might have a class, or set of classes, to abstract the database, i.e. a "data access layer" or DAL. But then again, your system might not have a DAL; and even if it does, you might still want your sequence diagram to show the interactions across the boundary, between the DAL and the actual database.
Using UML as a sketch, the methods implemented by external actors or system components are really up to you. You could show a database query as execute query, or something more specific, like an actual SQL statement. The "correctness" of your diagram is in its ability to communicate effectively with your audience, at the right level of detail and formality.
Yes, the Database would be a class in Class Diagram and its functions can be validation() , generatingErrorMessage() etc.
Related
The picture is taken from the book "UML # Classroom". The text says "the registration is via e-mail, that is, asynchronous".
In actuality, I believe, there would be no "Student" and "Professor" objects involved in the process. Rather an interface, a call to a mail server and in general, nothing that would tell the viewer of the diagram what is really going on.
That makes sense to me because it has an illustrative purpose. The methods of the classes in the sequence diagram would only resemble the methods in a class diagram at a low level.
If I am tasked with a high level view of class diagram and high level sequence diagrams of a particular interaction, if I am then asked why the classes of the class diagram don't have any of the methods of the sequence diagram, am I right to say that they simply don't have to?
Should I reach a compromise with the sequence diagram wherein I try to make the calls similar to what will be going on in the program?
The methods of the classes in the sequence diagram would only resemble the methods in a class diagram at a low level.
Not necessary, all depends on the goal of the sequence diagram, you can have classes at design level (may be allowing to generate code) but having them in a sequence diagram giving a semantic (high) level. You can also show these classes in class/package/... diagrams without low detail so not at design level.
The only rule is to have diagram saying something useful, and following UML specification of course. Do not forget UML is not a method but a language, it does not indicate how it must be used.
Remark you can put note in a diagram to help saying explicitly its level/goal in case you are afraid it is confusing because not 100% limited/dedicated to design even using classes part of the design.
if I am then asked why the classes of the class diagram don't have any of the methods of the sequence diagram, am I right to say that they simply don't have to?
yes, because the goal is not necessary to show a sequence of calls but for instance a higher level.
Should I reach a compromise with the sequence diagram wherein I try to make the calls similar to what will be going on in the program?
Of course you can do too.
Notice a sequence diagram (so in fact an interaction) has limited features, while for instance an activity allows to model a behavior in detail without the same limitations.
I know that I can build a Class diagram from a database E-R Diagram (tables become classes, tables properties are the classes properties...)
But I'm looking for informations (or step by step like) to create a class diagram from a use case description (or even a sequence diagram).
(All I found now is that the sequence diagram objects becomes classes and the stimuli messages methodes)
Any idea ?
I used to TA in software engineering, and both create a class diagram from a textual definition as well as create a class diagram from a sequence diagram were regular exam questions.
Creating class diagrams from a specification should be covered in your lectures since its one of the most important things to learn. This site explains the workflow quite well in my opinion.
It is important to note, that in software engineering there never is just one solution. You can tackle problems in multiple ways each with their own benefits and problems. The most important step to learning is doing it yourself, just looking at solutions won't help you.
For creating class diagrams from a sequence diagram:
Objects are instance of classes, in most sequence diagrams there is only one instance of any given class. Therefore "objects become classes" is not technically correct but the right intention.
Messages represent method calls on the receiving object, ergo you need to add these methods to the class of the receiving object.
Any communicating classes need to be associated, else they could not call their methods.
We put focus on only modelling the information you can derive from the sequence diagram, e.g. in most cases you do not know multiplicities of associations.
Can someone give me an example of when is better to use State Diagram and when Class Diagram. Tnx in advance!
For what type of software system would you use state machine diagrams to model functional requirements?
For what type of software system is data modeling via UML class diagrams suitable?
A class diagram shows classes in their relation and their properties and methods.
A state diagram visualizes a class's states and how they can change over time.
In both cases you are talking about diagrams which are only a window into the model. The class relations define how the single classes relate to each other. A state machine can be defined for each class to show its states. In embedded systems you use state machines almost all the time but there are also state machines for business applications (you can do this if that).
This question reveals a very common misunderstanding. There are only thirteen types of diagram in UML. They're not used to describe different types of system, but to describe different aspects of the system you are documenting. Which you pick in any given situation is more a question of style, what you want to emphasize.
It is better to use state diagrams if you want to focus on how the system can go into different states in response to various events. Activity diagrams are better if you want to focus on activities being carried out in some order, sequence diagrams are better if you want to show messages being sent between entities.
The above are all types of diagram which show behaviour. Class diagrams are a different type of beast altogether, and show how structures of things fit together (as do package diagrams and component diagrams).
It might be worth pointing out that while UML does not include a "requirement" element type, the related modelling language SysML does. If you want to express a number of functional requirements on the form "the system shall" in a model, SysML is a better fit.
A state diagram shows the behavior of the class. A class model shows the relationship between two or more classes. It includes its properties/attributes...
A state is an allowable sequence of changes of objects of a class model.
i'm php developer using MVC architecture that i'm new to UML
i know use-case , class , object , activity, sequence diagrams but i don't know for modeling a application where i should start.
i know use-case and class diagrams are structural diagrams and activity and sequence are behavior diagrams
but my questions are:
1. for modeling a app when i should use use-case diagram and when i should use class diagram?
2. does class diagram has abstract concept? because when i'm developing web app i have some controller and model or view also several classes that i use for different purpose (like insert data to database - validate form inputs and so on) but they don't look like to examples of class diagram that i'v seen until now so my question is class diagram is used for show concept of our system and it doesn't need to generate real class code form it ?
for example modeling a ticket reservation that may have some classes like this:
but we don't write class codes like this and it can be different in programming but for view the concept we are using class diagrams . is it true ?
Use-case diagram is usually used for representing the business of the project, indicate who(actor) are going to utilize the system and what services(cases) does program provide?
The class-diagram is used for specifying the whole system structure, but there no code and exact behavior will be provided by the class, generally developers don't specify the exact behavior with each module in-detail.
for example, consider a simple login module. in use-case diagram, we just mention that user logins into the system.
In class diagram we specify the possible base classes are needed, in other word we apply the architecture (we are planning) basis.
In sequence diagram we focus more on what is going on each method(while this is not necessary).
In fact UMl is used for representing the system as abstract, not the exact(in-detail) functionality.
for example I pass the above class-diagram to a developer, and tell him about the detail login process as a separated document.
If I create a conceptual class diagram such that each class captures 'name' and 'attributes' but not 'operations', have I not basically created what would be otherwise considered an ERD? I'm trying to gain an understanding of what the differences are between creating a conceptual class diagram as I have described versus calling it a ERD? If these are still two different animals, can somebody please explain what the differences are?
The class diagram contains just the classes in your object model with eventual links/relationships connecting diagram elements. However those links don't necessarily correspond to physical relationships like in an ERD diagram, but instead they represent logical connections.
The class diagram is just the object model of your application and does not contain any persistence-specific information. When you think about the class diagram forget about the database or any other storage you may use.
The ERD diagram on the other side, is a persistence-specific diagram which display the entities (tables) existing in a (most often) relational database. It also displays the physical relations (and cardinalities) between those tables and all other database-specific information. The ERD diagram can sometimes look similar to the class diagram, but that doesn't mean is the same as a class diagram.
There´s little difference in the expressiveness of both (if we just focus on the attributes, classes and associations part) if you use Extended Entity Relationship diagrams (the most common case nowadays)
True, they look very different at the graphical level since they use different symbols for the elements but the "semantics" are quite similar. They both allow inheritance (again, I´m talking about EER), n-ary associations, association classes, ...
The ER diagrams I've seen (most frequently ERWin IE notation) have focused on the design for a database. They are concerned with primary keys, foreign keys, have unnamed relationships, and usually have no generalization / specialization.
A good UML conceptual class diagram, on the other hand, is not concerned with keys, reflects the problem domain, and has association-end properties that at least hint at the semantics of why things are related. This helps communicate the domain down to more junior developers so they don't have to guess.
It depends on the situation where you may not like to do the ER-D. But imagine if you have a seperate data layer where the data logic is handled. In this case many details of data shall not be shared with the application layer. And you class diagram shall not go beyond the application layer. I must stress that both the diagrams are not equal. And there are situations where you need to do both, mainly in multi-tier architecture, and there are situations where you may be able to just use class diagram; e.g. single-tier application.
I strongly advocate the view that class diagram doesn't abrogate the E-R diagram.
Design class diagrams are made from conceptual model and collaboration diagrams.
Design class diagrams include:
Classes, associations and attributes
Methods
Types of attributes
Navigability
Dependencies
IMO In Simple terms
Class diagram depicts the details of how will the system work.
ER diagram depicts how the system persists 'state' as a blue print.
Goal:
Detail out state and behavior of the components(classes) of the system.
Design 'efficient', flexile system(less coupling and more cohesion) using Solid principles.
Goal:
Design a blue print of how to 'efficiently' persist the state of the system.
Consider what kind of queries will be made (read vs write), are there any joins required
consequently figure out the columns for indexing
Use Normalization, ACID properties.
PS: notice the both the diagram tries to efficiently do thing in their on respect.