Object B contains a bunch of public events.
Object A subscribes to these events.
What is the UML relationship between these?
Currently I have a directed association from Object A to Object B. Is that correct? Or should the direction go the other way?
It depends on what you want to express.
Logically, the subscriber A must know the publisher B, and the other way round, so you have a bidirectional relationship.
Technically, often the subscriptions are not managed by the publisher B but by some dispatcher D. The subscriber A knows the dispatcher D and the other way round. But the publisher B doesn't know A and, depending on the platform offering the broadcasting mechanism, maybe not even the dispatcher D. So, if you have a particular platform in mind, find out which types of objects need instance variables to reference other objects, and model the relationships according to that.
There should be a dependency relationship from A to B (a dashed arrow pointing from A to B). Chapter 7.8.4.1 of the UML spec version 2.5 reads:
A Dependency is a Relationship that signifies that a single model Element or a set of model Elements requires other model Elements for their specification or implementation.
In your case, A requires B to exist, but B does not require A to exist. Maybe B requires A to implement a particular interface. In that case, B depends on the interface, but not on A itself.
You propose to have an association from A to B. An association is stronger than a dependency. It means that A has a property of type B (well, the definition is a bit more complex, see chapter 11.5.3.1 of the UML spec). This implies that A depends on B, like a dependency, but a dependency does not require A to have a property of type B.
To summarize:
The arrow should point from A to B, not from B to A (unless your particular implementation of B depends on the existence of a class called A, which is unlikely).
A dependency is enough, but if you want A to have a property of type B, then you may draw an association (solid line) instead of a dependency (dashed line).
Both A and B probably maintain references to one another. A may want to unsubscribe, and B certainly has to be able to notify A of events. Thus, I would model it as a bidirectional relationship. You might even want B to compose all the subscribing instances. Check out the well known Observer Pattern.
Related
I have this class/object diagram:
I don’t understand why that object diagram is invalid according to the given class diagram.
In the object diagram, one C object has two links with two T objects, alpha relationship with a T object and beta relationship with another T. So I don’t think it violates the multiplicity constraints.
Could you please explain me why the object diagram is invalid?
Yours is the most interesting question I've seen here in a long time. It is pretty tricky!
The simple reason your instances are incorrect is that every instance of type T must be associated with one C. The top instance of type T in your diagram violates the constraint in association beta. (The multiplicity on the left end of the association.)
There are two faults in the object diagram.
There is only a formal fault in the object diagram, the lines in the objects diagrams between the instances are links, i.e., instances of the associations shown in the class diagram. As the links are instances, the same rules for instance naming apply as to class instances. So change alpha to :alpha and underline it, it is correct. Same for beta.
Further the links are not correct, as there is an beta link from the uppermost T instance missing. Each object of A, and as C is a specialization of A, also C (and B) objects need an alpha link to an S instance. As S is a generalized T, an alpha link between A (or one of its specializations) and S (or one of its specializations) is needed. Further each S (or T) might have arbitrary alpha links to A objects.
Each C object needs to have zero or one beta links to T instances. In the other direction, each T instance needs exactly one C instance via a beta link. This is missing for the uppermost T instance.
Leaving my prior answer below, but thinking twice, the answer is that your class diagram is incomplete.
The two alpha and beta associations have no association-end names. The fact that they have different multiplicities leads to the conclusion that they must be different associations. With names it would look like this:
Expanding the inheritance will make this:
Based on this assumption, my original answer stands like this:
The reason is that a :C has two associations alpha and beta each to another :T object. Not a single alpha to one and a single beta to another. So you need to add a beta to the alpha and vice versa.
Edit And yes, JimL. is correct. Having two alpha-links violates the constraint from the class diagram. So actually you can only have one T linked to C. Which again makes the class model very strange.
The C class has a beta-association to T. C inherits from A and T inherits from S. Since there is a alpha-association from A t0 S this is also inherited. So you have:
A few days ago a friend pointed out to me that I had a wrong idea of composition in UML. She was completely right, so I decided to find out what more I could have been wrong about. Right now, there is one more thing that I have doubts about: I have a circular dependency in my codebase that I would like to present in UML form. But how.
In my case the following is true:
Both A and B have a list of C
C has a reference to both A and B to get information from.
C cannot exist if either A or B stops to exist
Both A and B remain to exist after C is deleted from A and/or B
To model this, I've come up with the following UML (I've ommited multiplicities for now, to not crowd the diagram.)
My question is, is this the right way to model such relations?
Problems
Some facts to keep in mind:
Default multiplicity makes your model invalid. A class may only be composed in one other class. When you don't specify multiplicity, you get [1..1]. That default is sad, but true.
The UML spec doesn't define what open-diamond aggregation means.
Your model has many duplicate properties. There is no need for any of the properties in the attribute compartments, as there are already unnamed properties at the ends of every association.
Corrections
Here is a reworking of your model to make it more correct:
Notice the following:
The exclusive-or constraint between the associations means only one of them can exist at a time.
Unfortunately, the multiplicities allow an instance of C to exist without being composed by A or B. (See the reworked model below.)
The property names at the ends of all associations explicitly name what were unnamed in your model. (I also attempted to indicate purpose in the property names.)
The navigability arrows prevent multiple unwanted properties without resorting to duplicative attributes.
Suggested Design
If I correctly understand what your model means, here is how I would probably reverse the implementation into design:
Notice the following:
Class D is abstract (the class name is in italics), meaning it can have no direct instances.
The generalization set says:
An instance cannot be multiply classified by A and B. (I.e., A and B are {disjoint}.)
An instance of D must be an instance of one of the subclasses. (I.e., A and B are {complete}, which is known as a covering axiom.)
The subclasses inherit the ownedC property from class D.
The composing class can now have a multiplicity of [1..1], which no longer allows an instance of C to exist without being composed by an A or a B.
Leave away the open diamonds and make them normal associations. These are no shared aggregations but simple associations. The composite aggregations are ok.
In general there is not much added value in showing aggregations at all. The semantic added value is very low. In the past this was a good hint to help the garbage collection dealing with unneeded objects. But nowadays almost all target languages have built-in efficient garbage collectors. Only in cases where you want an explicit deletion of the aggregated objects you should use the composite aggregation.
Considerer this:
As far as I know in case 1 a is related to b, and a is aware of b so a is able to send messages to b, but b is not aware of a so b is not able to send messages to a.
In the other hand, in case 2 a is related to b, and both of them are aware of each other, both of them are able to send messages to the other.
But my question is what about that when the relationship is not association but aggregation? Could an aggregation relationship have bidirectional navegability in UML so both instances are aware of each other?
In case a owns b, consequently a is aware of b. (in other words a is able to send messages to b). but what about the other way around, does b is aware of a? or does this could never be the case? or this is just not specified in the diagram and this could be both ways? and, in case b has to be aware of a how would that be expressed(I've never seen an aggregation line with an arrowhead in the other end)?
does all of this applies in the same way for composition?
Another thing slightly related to this I Was wondering, could a non bi-directional association have two roles?
As far as I know this could not be possible because a non bi-directional relationship is a relation when just one of the related instances is aware of the other, and a role means how an instance perceive another one, so we need that both instances are aware of each other to be able to have two roles, is this correct?
Directed associations as per UML 2.5:
A DirectedRelationship represents a relationship between a collection of source model Elements and a collection of target model Elements.
So this does not say much. And in fact you can simply leave it away. There is a concept of non-navigability which explicitly rules out navigation.
Ownership is not shown by an arrow but by a dot near the owning class.
Another cite from Superstructures (p. 200 in chap. 11.5 Associations):
Navigability notation was often used in the past according to an informal convention, whereby non-navigable ends were assumed to be owned by the Association whereas navigable ends were assumed to be owned by the Classifier at the opposite end. This convention is now deprecated. Aggregation type, navigability, and end ownership are separate concepts, each with their own explicit notation. Association ends owned by classes are always navigable, while those owned by associations may be navigable or not.
If you specify a role name that explicitly means you have navigability towards the named class.
I have one object, call it type A which has four data members of another object type, call it B. How do I show this in a UML class diagram so that its clear there are four B objects type in every A object?
Is the only solution to put "4" next to the arrow head pointing to class B?
It depends on what you want to achive, in sense of how you need to distinguish between those objects in context of their association/link, that is - what kind of role they play:
if there are all equal, no special differences in their role in context of A, them a multiplicity 4..4 will do the job, naming the association end properly (for example my_Bs)
If these object play different role in connection with A, then you can use separate associations with lower multiplicities each one, 2, 3 or even 4 pieces (for example, if B is a Wheel and A is Car, then you can put 2 associations with multiplicities 2..2 each, and call then "front" and "rear", or even 4 associations "front_left", "front_right"...)
Here is how the both cases look like. On the second one I showd different possible options (with max. 5 elements of B), just to give you an idea.
It's probably clear by now, but the fundamental concept here is the role of the association end.
Aleks answer is the best. However you can also represent the multiplicity in one box like this :
You cal also use composite structure diagram. See example below:
From my point of view, myBs defined as an attribute of type B on class A has a different meaning of myBs defined as a association's role between A and B (which is also different as defining it as a composition/aggregation).
If it is an attribute, then it's not a role. In that case, there is only a simple dependency relation between A and B, which must appear in the diagram.
I think that problem comes from unconsciously think from a "Relationnal Data (BMS)" and/or a "Object Oriented Programming" point of view, but UML is not intended for that.
:)
What is the difference between association and dependency? Can you give code examples?
What is the relationship between class A and B?
class A
{
B *b;
void f ()
{
b = new B ();
b->f();
delete b;
}
}
The short answer is: how any specific source language construct should be represented in UML is not strictly defined. This would be part of a standardized UML profile for the language in question, but these are sadly few and far between. Long answer follows.
In your example, I'm afraid I would have to say "neither", just to be difficult. A has a member variable of type B, so the relationship is actually an aggregation or a composition... Or a directed association. In UML, a directed association with a named target role is semantically equivalent to an attribute with the corresponding name.
As a rule of thumb, it's an aggregation if b gets initialized in A's constructor; it's a composition if it also gets destroyed in B's destructor (shared lifecycle). If neither applies, it's an attribute / directed association.
If b was not a member variable in A, and the local variable b was not operatoed on (no methods were called on it), then I would represent that as a dependency: A needs B, but it doesn't have an attribute of that type.
But f() actually calls a method defined in B. This to me makes the correct relationship a <<use>>, which is a more specialized form of dependency.
Finally, an (undirected) association is the weakest form of link between two classes, and for that very reason I tend not to use them when describing source constructs. When I do, I usually use them when there are no direct source code relationships, but the two classes are still somehow related. An example of this might be a situation where the two are responsible for different parts of the same larger algorithm, but a third class uses them both.
It may be useful to see this question I asked: does an association imply a dependency in UML
My understanding is:
Association
public class SchoolClass{
/** This field, of type Bar, represents an association, a conceptual link
* between SchoolClass and Student. (Yes, this should probably be
* a List<Student>, but the array notation is clearer for the explanation)
*/
private Student[] students;
}
Dependency
public class SchoolClass{
private Timetable classTimetable;
public void generateTimetable(){
/*
* Here, SchoolClass depends on TimetableGenerator to function,
* but this doesn't represent a conceptual relationship. It's more of
* a logical implementation detail.
*/
TimetableGenerator timetableGen = new TimetableGenerator();
/*
* Timetable, however, is an association, as it is a conceptual
* relationship that describes some aspect of the data that the
* class holds (Remember OOP101? Objects consist of data and operations
* upon that data, associations are UMLs way or representing that data)
*/
classTimetable = timetableGen.generateTimetable();
}
}
If you want to see the difference at the "code level", in an association between A and B, the implementation of A (or B or both depending on cardinalities, navigability,...) in an OO lang would include an attribute of type B.
Instead in a dependency, A would probably have a method where one of the parameters is of type B. So A and B are not linked but changing B would affect the dependant class A since maybe the way the A method manipulates the object B is no longer valid (e.g. B has changed the signature of a method and this induces a compile error in the class A)
Get it from Wiki: Dependency is a weaker form of relationship which indicates that one class depends on another because it uses it at some point of time. One class depends on another if the latter is a parameter variable or local variable of a method of the former. This is different from an association, where an attribute of the former is an instance of the latter.
So I think the case here is association, if B is a parameter variable or local variable of a method of the A, then they are dependency.
A dependency really is very loosely defined. So there would be no code representation.
Wiki: A dependency is a semantic relationship where a change to the influent or independent modeling element may affect the semantics of the dependent modeling element.[1]
From the OMG Spec: A dependency is a relationship that signifies that a single or a set of model elements requires other model elements for their specification or implementation. This means that the complete semantics of the depending elements is either semantically or structurally dependent on the definition of the supplier element(s).