Trying to distinguish the notions of aggregation and composition I came across to the following:
What do they mean by saying this?
Simple aggregation does not change the meaning of the navigation
across the association between the whole and its parts.
both are directed associations.
It means that if you set one side to composite you can still navigate in both directions. So you can go from the whole to the part as well as from parts to the whole. However, that is only valid if no explicit statement is made else.
Navigability or rather ownership is now indicated by a small dot near the owning class. So if you set the dot near either end it means that this side has control over the association and you can navigate from this side. Having a dot on both sides means you can explicitly navigate to both side. Having no dot just means "you can implement what you like; get it from the context".
E.g. in the following picture Class1 is the owner of the association.
And here it's Class2:
Edit: The UML spec talks about navigation and ownership as orthogonal concepts. You probably need to be a square egghead to believe in that. See associations in uml-diagrams :
"Aggregation type, navigability, and end ownership are orthogonal concepts, ..." which is clearly an overstatement. [...] which clearly makes navigability dependent on ownership.
Related
I have the following UML containing the class School which (in my example right now) can only have one TeacherRoom.
My Question now is what is the official notation for this UML or should i remove the <<use>> assosiation because it is obvious?
Obvious because i am saving a instance of TeacherRoom in my School instance?
I would define it like that:
The fact that you have attribute teacherRoom : TeacherRoom in class School implies that School is using TeacherRoom, so the ≪use≫-dependency is not needed.
You also have a composition association to TeacherRoom. This means that, in addition to the attribute, you have a second relationship with TeacherRoom. So you may remove either one.
According to my understanding of section 10.4 of UML 2.5.1 specification, Usage dependency decribes the fact that a given Component requires an Interface or Services.
So I would remove it, as this has nothing to do with the fact that a "School" is composed of "TeacherRoom".
My second point is your "teacherRoom" property which has more or less the same meaning than your composition so I would remove one of them (Property or Composition).
Since you wrote
can only have one [typo corrected by me] TeacherRoom.
you need to add a multiplicity 1 to the right of the association (and as commented and answered to remove the diamond). Also rather than an attribute in School you should use a role name teacherRoom at the association and make it an owned property by adding a dot.
Some additional remarks to composition: Composition is (my personal impression) something that causes more confusion than it actually helps building models (just look for questions asking about its semantic and/or look out for wrong usage of it). Even worse is the shared aggregation which caused (and causes) even more confusion. Now after many editions, UML 2.5 defines that hollow thingy as what it is: nothing. Just read the box on p. 110. So back to the filled one, the composite aggregation. Basically it's about lifetime of objects, so whether there's an owner of an object who is responsible of its lifetime. When you make a car composed of its wheels, that's obviously not right since the wheel will live on without being attached to the car. Only the car is no longer a car. But that will be expressed by attaching a multiplicity of 4 to the wheel. Any car with not exactly 4 wheels is no longer a car. No composition at all.
So where can you use composite aggregation then? I have only 2 applications in mind. One is for storage managent. Something that had been important in the early days of computing when dinosaurs like me fought along with hard disks at cupboard size that had 20 Megabytes! Only a few border cases still need indication for memory management. The second case would be security. Indication that something has to be deleted along with its parent. And that's still valid. But then this is the only real application for composite aggregation.
I'm very new to UML, especially use case diagrams. I attempted to draw a use case diagram for my application which includes a renter, a seller, and a general user. My renter and seller extend general user. I am having trouble with includes and extends. For example, When you view an office space, you can also see the reviews for it at the bottom of the page. As well as when a renter wants to write a review, he/she must do this on the view office space page. I am not sure if this is an extends or an include. Please correct me if I am wrong with any of my arrow directions. Also, is it okay to say that Renter and Seller include logging in?
As Jim states: I/E are for UCs, not for Actors. I assume you meant a generalization here, so both inherit from General User.
Some further observations:
Use verb-substantive for UCs titles
Think of the "use" in use cases. IOW: the added value. If you don't find it's added value, then it's no use case.
Avoid I/E in general. They often indicate that you try to use functional decomposition which is not the aim of a UC synthesis.
The relation you draw between the UCs is wrong in any case. There is no relation which has a filled triangle and is dotted. You probably meant to use some <<include>> dependency (with an open arrow). But as said above: avoid it. Just create an association to the actors. It's sufficient to just draw one between Reviews and General User as Renter will inherit the relation.
Login/out are no UCs (no added value). The are constraints to other UC (write {must be logged in} and attach to the connector)
You generally should not model login use cases, as they don't directly help the user accomplish anything he or she cares about.
Includes and extends are relationships between use use cases, not actors. The UML 2.5 specification says:
An extension is:
A relationship from an extending UseCase to an extended UseCase that specifies how and when the behavior defined in the extending UseCase can be inserted into the behavior defined in the extended UseCase.
An include is:
An Include relationship specifies that a UseCase contains the behavior defined in another UseCase.
A generalization / specialization relationship between actors is perfectly fine. That's just a generalization arrow. (e.g., a solid line with a hollow arrow head.)
I have a short question:
Should I name attributes of types like a List, Arrays, Vectors or Pointers to objects (not primitive type) in the UML diagram or the only association/aggregation/composition arrows are enough?
Example: which of these diagrams is correct?
or
In UML, your second diagram would be correct if you wrote the property names at the far ends of the associations. While UML properties are allowed to be unnamed, it is not a good practice. Use association ends to indicate why the relationship exists. Sometimes more than one association must exist between one pair of classes, but for different reasons. How would you tell them apart?
The first diagram shows two properties of each type. One is named and another (at the end of each association) is unnamed. That is incorrect.
This really depends on what you're trying to convey in this architectural drawing.
The purpose of the drawing is to help reason about the structure of the software. It should not be used to represent all of the details of implementation. If you put too much detail in it, it becomes cluttered, and it is hard to keep it consistent with the source code as changes occur.
The UML drawing should be more abstract than the implementation. It should hide details on purpose, so that it conveys the external view of classes, and not how they are implemented internally. You generally don't want users of classes to assume too much about their internal implementation, therefore you don't want to expose it too much.
Also, an architecture is typically represented by several drawings - not one. Try to have each drawing focus on one level of abstraction. If you have a few high level classes that represent the main logic of the application, and many low level classes, it makes sense to have a drawing of just the high level classes separately.
According to UML specs every Element can have an owner. Whether he has/must have an owner is determined by method mustBeOwned(): Boolean, which by default is true (see 7.8 Classifier Descriptions in specs).
In cases when an element is completely enclosed by its owner (such as a class in a package) it is quite obvious.
However for relationships (normal, directed, generalization, …) I didn't find any specification. Is the "source" (for directed at least) also the owner?
Is it the first common owner in the ownership chain? So for example association between two classes in a same package, the owner of the association would be the package.
Or is it simply not defined and it can be whatever I want?
To be honest, the definition of terms in Superstructures is still very poor.
Looking closer it's even worse (citing from ptc 13-09-05).
Relationships (p. 15)
A Relationship is an Element that specifies some kind of relationship between other Elements. Descendants of Relationship provide semantics appropriate to the concept they represent.
Connector (p. 235)
A Connector specifies links that enables communication between two or more instances. In contrast to Associations, which specify links between any instance of the associated Classifiers, Connectors specify links between instances playing the connected parts only.
I wasn't aware that they made a difference between both. Appears to be quite picky.
Association (p. 206)
An Association classifies a set of tuples representing links between typed instances. An AssociationClass is both an Association and a Class.
No mentioning of Relationship as being a parent.
Now seeking for the truth about owner
owner (p. 37)
/owner : Element [0..1]{union} (opposite Element::ownedElement) The Element that owns this Element.
mustBeOwned (a bit down)
mustBeOwned() : Boolean
The query mustBeOwned() indicates whether Elements of this type must have an owner. Subclasses of Element that do not require an owner must override this operation.
So here one is stuck unless reading to
Association (p 209)
Ownership of Association ends by an associated Classifier may be indicated graphically by a small filled circle, which for brevity we will term a dot. The dot is to be drawn integral to the graphic path of the line, at the point where it meets the Classifier, inserted between the end of the line and the side of the node representing the Classifier. The diameter of the dot shall not exceed half the height of the aggregation diamond, and shall be larger than the width of the line. This avoids visual confusion with the filled diamond notation while ensuring that it can be distinguished from the line. The dot shows that the model includes a Property of the type represented by the Classifier touched by the dot. This Property is owned by the Classifier at the other end. In such a case it is normal to suppress the Property from the attributes compartment of the owning Classifier.
Answer?
Most likely (!) connectors do not have the mustBeOwned constraint and can be owned in which case you will see the dot that has been introduced with 2.5. Else they are probably not owned.
To my understanding, the relation is generally not owned by elements it connects. What is owned is the association (relationship) end's and corresponding attributes/properties. Section 6.4.2. of UML specification 2.4.1 clarified this much better than your linked 2.5 beta. I would suggest that you use the current official version of specs rather than the beta one. I find the 2.5 being kind of unintelligible, the table of contents looks very chaotic.
The Relationship itself exists independently, it has no owner. Except when stated otherwise by concrete type of relationship (as in case of Generalization).
Which brings me to the main point of my answer by question. Why do you need to know?
I have been reading and explaining the specification for years now, but never came across such a specific question, which moreover is relatively clearly stated in the specs.
I would recommend to look at concrete relations and search (Ctrl+F) for "owned" (an Association has more than a page of text on this very topic in detail starting on page 40 in 2.4.1).
I myself have been trying to figure out what can own an instance of Association. I am using 2.4.1. This appears to me to be a(nother) case of the standard not actually being usable.
I haven't looked at all of the specializations of Relationship. I have looked at Association. It inherits owner from Element. The property is noted as a derived union. I can't find any property of Association (or any of its antecedents) that subsets owner. That being the case, I don't see how Association can actually have an owner.
I think that it seems reasonable for a Package to own an association.
I am using a UML tool that certainly does initialize the value of owner for associations. I am programmatically interpreting models created in that tool and using them as input for other modeling tools that I am working on. The makers of the first tool obviously had to just make up / guess at things and now I have to decide whether what they did was actually rational and if I want to agree with their conclusions (which happen to allow Classifiers to own Associations, which I think is weird) or do something else. Thanks OMG. Grrrr.
I wonder if older versions of the spec were any more clear?
I drives me crazy how many books contradicts themselves.
Class A {} class B {void UseA(A a)} //some say this is an association,
no reference is held but communication is possible
Class A {} class B {A a;} //some say this is
aggregration, a reference is held
But many say that holding a reference is still just an association and for aggregation they use a list - IMHO this is the same, it it still a reference.
I am very confused, I would like to understand the problem.
E.g. here: http://aviadezra.blogspot.cz/2009/05/uml-association-aggregation-composition.html - what is the difference between Strong Association and Aggregation, in both cases the author uses a field to store the reference..
Another example:
This is said to be Association:
And this is said to be Aggregration:
public class Professor {
// ...
}
public class Department {
private List<Professor> professorList;
// ..
}
Again, what is the difference? It is a reference in both cases
This question has been, and will be, asked many times in many different variants, because many people, including many high-profile developers, are confused about the meaning of these terms, which have been defined in the UML. Since the question has been asked many times, it has also been answered many times. See, e.g. this answer. I'll try to summarize the UML definitions.
An association between two classes is not established via a method parameter, but rather via reference properties (class attributes), the range/type of which are the associated classes. If the type of a method parameter is a class, this does not establish an association, but a dependency relationship.
It's essential to understand the logical concept of associations first, before looking at how they are coded. An association between object types classifies relationships between objects of those types. For instance, the association Committee-has-ClubMember-as-chair, which is visualized as a connection line in the class diagram shown below, may classify the relationships FinanceCommittee-has-PeterMiller-as-chair, RecruitmentCommittee-has-SusanSmith-as-chair and AdvisoryCommittee-has-SarahAnderson-as-chair, where the objects PeterMiller, SusanSmith and SarahAnderson are of type ClubMember, and the objects FinanceCommittee, RecruitmentCommittee and AdvisoryCommittee are of type Committee.
An association is always encoded by means of reference properties, the range/type of which is the associated class. For instance, like so
class Committee { ClubMember chair; String name;}
In the UML, aggregation and composition are defined as special forms of associations with the intended meaning of classifying part-whole-relationships. In the case of aggregation, as opposed to composition, the parts of a whole can be shared with other wholes. This is illustrated in the following example of an aggregation, where a course can belong to many degree programs.
The defining characteristic of a composition is to have exclusive (or non-shareable) parts. A composition may come with a life-cycle dependency between the whole and its parts implying that when a whole is destroyed, all of its parts are destroyed with it. However, this only applies to some cases of composition, and not to others, and it is therefore not a defining characteristic. An example of a composition where the parts (components) can be detached from the whole (composite) and therefore survive its destruction, is the following:
See Superstructures 2.1.1:
An association may represent a composite aggregation (i.e., a whole/part relationship). Only binary associations can be aggregations. Composite aggregation is a strong form of aggregation that requires a part instance be included in at most one composite at a time. If a composite is deleted, all of its parts are normally deleted with it. Note that a part can (where allowed) be removed from a composite before the composite is deleted, and thus not be deleted as part of the composite. Compositions may be linked in a directed acyclic graph with transitive deletion characteristics; that is, deleting an element in one part of the graph will also result in the deletion of all elements of the subgraph below that element. Composition is represented by the isComposite attribute on the part end of the association being set to true.
Navigability means instances participating in links at runtime (instances of an association) can be accessed efficiently from instances participating in links at the other ends of the association. The precise mechanism by which such access is achieved is implementation specific. If an end is not navigable, access from the other ends may or may not be possible, and if it is, it might not be efficient. Note that tools operating on UML models are not prevented from navigating associations from non-navigable ends.
Your above examples are on different abstraction levels. Department/Course are concrete coding classes while Department/Professor are at some abstract business level. Though there is no good source (I know) explaining this fact, composition and aggregation are concepts you will use only on business level and almost never at coding level (exception below). When you are at code level you live much better with Association having role names on both sides. Roles themselves are a different(/redundant!) rendering of properties of a class that refer to the opposite class.
Aggregation as a strong binding between classes is used e.g. in database modeling. Here you can delete a master only if the aggregates have all been deleted previously (or vice vera: deleting the master will force deletion of the aggregates). The aggregate can not live on its own. The composition as in your example is (from my POV) a silly construct as it pretends to be some week aggregation. But that's simply nonsense. Then use an association. Only on a business level you can try to model (e.g.) machine parts as composite. On a concrete level a composition is a useless concept.
tl;dr;
If there is a relation between classes show it as simple association. Adding details like roles will aid when discussing domain details. Use of composition/aggregation is encouraged only when modeling on business level and dis-encouraged on code level.
I've written an article about the differences between UML Association vs Aggregation vs Composition based on the actual UML specification rather then interpretations of book authors.
The primary conclusion being that
In short, the Composition is a type of Association with real constraints and impact on development, whereas the Aggregation is purely a functional indication of the nature of the Association with no technical impact.
Navigability is a completely different property and independent of the AggregationKind.
For one thing, UML is a rich language, meaning there is more than one way to describe the same thing. That's one reason you find different ways described in different books (and conflicting answers on SO).
But a key issue is the huge disconnect between UML and source code. How a specific source code construct is represented in UML, and vice versa, is not part of the UML specification at all. To my knowledge, only one language (Java) has an official UML profile, and that's out of date.
So the representation of specific source-language constructs are left to the tool vendors, and therefore differ. If you intend to generate code from your model, you must follow the vendor's conventions. If, conversely, you wish to generate a model from existing source code, you get a model based on those same conventions. But if you transfer that model to a different tool (which is difficult at the best of times) and generate code out of that, you won't end up with the same code.
In language-and-tool-agnostic mode, my take on which relationships to use in which situations can be found here. One point there worth repeating is that I don't use undirected associations in source-code models, precisely because they have no obvious counterpart in actual code. If in the code class A has a reference to class B, and B also has one to A, then I draw two relationships instead.