Please can anyone suggest any improvements or corrections in the attached sequence diagram. The diagram is regarding student registration and search book.
You should not think on classes creation being in sequence diagram. Make a class diagram, maybe an object diagram, and after that make your sequence diagram with instances of created classes as timelines. Add a class diagram here, without it it is impossible to answer your questions.
As is, you are working with elements of use case diagram (agents), not classes. It is acceptable, too. But then you should create a component diagram and use components as timelines.
So, your problem is that you have minimally one diagram less than you should. A whole diagram, not a block in one.
So, for this task you can use the following sets of diagrams:
The fullest one: Use Case + State + Component + Communication + Sequence + Class + Object + Composite Structure
The wide refactoring of your diagram: Component + Sequence + Class + Object
The minimalistic refactoring: Sequence + Class
Of course, you can make more than one diagram of any kind mentioned. Also, some diagrams if they are small, can be combined in one - UC+State, for example.
The normal process is creation one diagram after another, returning to the previous ones. Behaviour/structure diagrams of the same level can be created simultaneously. If you have problems with some thought on one diagram, try to express it on another one.
Yes, you can do a sequence diagram for every action of use case or even of Activity/communication diagram. But if your seniors won't make you to do it, it is enough to create only these diagrams that are needed for better understanding of the process.
Sequence diagrams, in the context you're using them, should be modeling a single path through a use case. Think of it this way: a use case diagram models the different things that a system does and who interacts with it. An activity diagram models out the behavior of a single use case. A sequence diagram models out a single path through a use case (in other words, a single path through an activity diagram that models a use case).
In the case of your above sequence diagrams, it looks like you have two use cases: "Login" and "Create Account". Create account extends login. I would suggest that you first document in detail what each use case does (google "Use case narrative" for more information). Use an activity diagram if it helps clarify the narrative. Then look at the individual paths through the use case (google "use case scenario" for more information), using sequence diagrams to help clarify the scenarios as necessary.
Related
I understand the appropriate use of extend and include , however all the examples I could find draw single large use case diagram with extend or include within the system boundary of that single use case diagram.
Our current project has a base use case diagram with different specialisations from that base use case diagram. Each diagram is on a different page in the document and due to their combined size, including all of them into a single diagram is not a good idea. I would like to know if there is a standard or conventional way of communicating this inheritance tree of separate use case diagrams? If there is not, what would you recommend is the best way to go forward with this dilemma?
Uses Cases inheritance
Does this image extracted from UML speficitaion helps you ?
A point which is not clear for me, are you dealing with Use case inheritance or diagram inheritance ? To tell the truth, I never used diagram inheritance and I am not sure if this is possible and the meaning of a such usage of inheritance.
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.
I am trying to build a class diagram from use case. But I am not sure if I should include the system in class diagram. I have system as actor in use case diagram. If I include it in the case diagram can I use it without attributes....
"I have system as actor in use case diagram" - Actor can be human or non-human system external to your subject that is your whole system. For example, card payment system or buyer are actors for net stores. You can show your system in the use case diagram, too, but it will be a rectangle, containing ALL use cases - not really so much useful thing. But showing of SUBsystems can be useful.
Later you can draw a deployment diagram - if different subsystem lie on different computers. And maybe, some dynamic diagrams of how they talk to each other and actors.
If we are talking on static diagrams, your next step will be component diagram - you'll divide your system in smaller parts and show who talks to who and here already the classes of messages being sent can appear.
Later - you'll plan what packages will contain your classes and what will be visible from which. Package diagram.
Later - yes, at last we are here - you create the class diagram(s). Maybe, several - for different components. So, you are a bit too in a hurry.
Sometimes, especially, if you work with some special objects of some class(es), you need Object Diagram.
And don't forget - there are also dynamic diagrams, I have mentioned static ones only.
Can you please elaborate your question with specific example in order to get better knowledge about the scenario?
As far my knowledge, one can use the system such as any controller class which is again an actor here as class in the class diagram.
"I am trying to build a class diagram from use case"
Use-cases are a very abstract and user-centric view of the system while class diagrams are fine-grained and technically focused.
So you should not try to infer your classes directly from a UC diagram. Instead, use the repertoire UML gives you (component-, activity-, sequence diagrams etc.)
In my experience, I usually create Object interaction Diagram from Use Cases. Mostly, the nouns on the Use Cases are Classes ... In Object Interaction Diagrams, I can have clear ideas about the methods and lifespan of the Classes ...
"Object Interaction Diagrams" or "Interaction Diagrams" are usually to elaborate a single use Case ..
A simple google search gave me this link and it gives you some idea ...
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~stotts/145/CRC/Interactions.html
I would like to know which diagram from those two should be created first when designing large IT system.
In every article I read about UML, the component diagram is mentioned as almost last.
I think that, when designing a larger system is better to divide it to smaller parts/modules on the component diagram and then for every component create a detailed class diagram. Is that correct?
How it look in practice from your experiences?
Do you know of any article/tutorial that shows from beginning to end, the design of system using UML?
There is no mandatory order for UML diagram design - in fact, you will often find yourself creating several simple diagrams of different types, and refining them later. The process is generally iterative but doesn't have a follow a particular order.
That being said, some UML diagrams provide a more abstract view than others, and it may sometimes make sense to start with the most abstract views and work your way down to the most specialised ones. Use case diagrams typically come early, while object diagrams or state diagrams often come later in the design process, once the original, abstract solution has been refined.
You will also want to take a look at consistency between your diagrams: indeed, with several views you will introduce redundant elements, and it is important to make sure that they do not contradict each other. For example, if you have a sequence diagram and a class diagram, any call message in the former should correspond to an operation in the latter. See Alexander Egyed et al's work for automated consistency management and correction in UML models.
I've had this discussion with my professor at college about UML diagrams .
He believes that sequence diagrams should be drawn before getting to class diagrams, but I think the opposite . I think after finishing the usecase diagram , the next diagram should be class diagram and after that we should get to sequence diagram.
Rational rose requires us to use the classes in sequence diagram, which are already in class diagram.
Can anyone help me with this?
I think you're both wrong. They should be drawn at the same time. As you're drawing your sequence diagram, you will undoubtedly come up with properties that you will need to keep track of the state, or that you hadn't thought of if you do the class diagram in a vacuum.
Of course, this is highly subjective and personal, but years of real-world experience (as opposed to academic theory) have taught me to work on both at the same time. MAYBE starting with the class diagram, but the class diagram invariably changes when you start going through process flows.
Well it depends a lot on how you plan to do things. I think it's a subjective matter. If you rather explain the actions performed for your usecases and after this has been done write the classes based on what you need to perform the sequences your professor is right.
But if you prefer to determine what the structure of your classes are and then adapt the action sequence to this then you would do the class diagram first and later the sequence.
In my experience I do them concurrently. I put the fundamental attributes to the class diagram but not the actions, and while I do the sequence diagram I add the methods and attributes that I need to the class diagram.
There is no one standard answer. There are several opinions, approaches and methods. In Unified Process I believe you first identify use case and then make realizations for them, e.g. sequence diagrams. As in use cases, there are actors and the systems and/or its parts interacting ina sequence. Actually this interactions should help you decompose your design and get to classes. Once you have classes on the analysis level, you can go further to design classess and design interactions. However these are quite a lot to draw in a diagram, most of the times code is the best documentation on this level, even generated diagrams are too large and more difficult to understand then code itself.
To prepare sequence diagram you need classes not the class diagram
You can prepare empty classes on the fly while in process of preparing sequence diagram....
Identification class objects in be part of preparing sequence or you can try to identify your objects before hand....
sequence is logical process while class diagram is end output
I don't think there is an order for creating diagrams since both are two different views of a system: class diagram structural (static) and sequence is behavioral (dynamic). I would start with sequence diagrams since you will discover more classes to create as you go through sequences. Do whatever makes sense for you at the time. If your doing more object oriented programming, I would consider doing classes before sequences.
Structural and behavioural models for all but the very simplest systems are naturally created simultaneously and iteratively, refining both over time.
You may have some method of "object discovery" such as CRC cards, which will yield a set of initial classes, with collaborations (the classes they interact with) and responsibilities, which informs both the methods they will need, and internal behaviour/state/activity.
You may then want to explore the use cases and scenarios using sequence or communication diagrams, this will expose the details of the required object communication and therefore inform the generation of public methods and relationships to refine the class diagram while at the same exploring the system behaviour which may yield further objects and classes to be created.
You may also want to explore the internal behaviour of classes, especially if they have stateful and/or active behaviour; activity ans state-machine diagrams are useful for this.
Either way I doubt that the use of Rational Rose is really the determinant of diagram creation order. Rational may require the classes on a sequence diagram to exist, but I imagine that they need not actually appear on a class diagram; they can probably equally be created on the sequence diagram and then later placed on a class diagram, or even created in the project explorer or whatever the equivalent is in that tool. Even if the only method of creating a class is to place it on a class diagram, that does not require you to refine and complete the class or its relationships before exploring interactions on a sequence diagram.
You need to buy some clothes, how you will proceed. You start choosing clothes first or you will decide first where to go? At the same time, will you go to shoe store if you want to buy shirt.
So both are iterative, but definitely first step is sequence on very high (component) level then drill down to class level sequence
You should first decide your application flow,means you should first draw a sequence diagram. It will show the flow of your application after this you should go for class diagram.