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
Related
According to UML context diagram context diagram doesn't exists.
So my question is which one of UML diagrams is good to show something like this and how to paint this?
I've just found the following definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_context_diagram
That's probably what you need. :)
A context diagram defines a boundary between the system, or part of a system, and its
environment, showing the entities that interact with it.
There is no single diagram in UML that would map to this definition, but I have some good news - there are several diagrams (out of total of 14) that can show the frontier between the system and its surrounding world from different perspectives. This is much more flexible than only a context diagram.
First of all, I would mention a special UML element - a boundary. It can be used in any diagram type to show some kind of delimitation. You might want to optionally use it to visually delimit between the system and its environment, especially in situations when this is not explicit.
The following diagrams can show the boundary between the system and its environment:
Use case diagram (your example) support the context explicitly on the functional level. Use cases are elements of the system under development, while the actors are extern entities (systems or human users). Before mentioned boundary is often used to visually delimit between the system and its environment.
Component diagram is used to model some kind of software modules (applications, DBs, external systems, libraries, etc). You can use it to show both internal and external components and the way they interact. A boundary can be used to clearly draw the separation line.
Activity diagram can show your system/business/usage processes. Some activities can be performed internally, others externally. Here you don't need the boundary, but the so called swimlanes to depict who does what.
Sequence/collaboration diagrams are another option. They show the communication sequences between several objects. If you split those objects in internal and external ones and wrap them up with the boundaries, there is another context diagram. :)
UML is flexible, there are probably further options, but I think this is enough to get the idea.
Names of your association are services. UseCase in center of diagram is context of services definition. See usecase diagram:
It could be done with a use case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_case
EDIT:
Reconsidering it, use case diagram should be the next step once the operations are defined so first you shouls make a system sequence diagram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_sequence_diagram
If you're happy with going into the not complete superset of UML that is SysML, you can have proper Context diagrams there.
However, context diagrams in SysML are simply Block Diagrams showing system context… and Block Diagrams happen to be the same as UML2 Class diagram, where the classes are of stereotype «SysML::Block».
So you can define your context diagram in terms of aggregation of blocks to your system, with the relevant stereotypes, basing it on UML2 Class diagrams.
I tend to use collaboration diagrams for this. So for each major scenario of each use case, draw a collaboration diagram showing the actors, with the application as a single entity in the middle, and messages travelling around that show how the application interacts with the actors in order to fulfil the scenario.
(I don't put too much detail in the messages -- I only want to show that there is a delegation of responsibility and some kind of interaction, but I don't care about details of actual messages, views, data etc.)
I find the context diagram does have a particular appeal. It sits well with business users, showing them the scope & parties of a system in a very easy way. So, I tend to create a context diagram, even in contexts where UML is prevalent.
I am new to UML designing and read few articles on this. bit confused where to start..
Do i need to prepare all of the UML diagrams for a web application or is some diagrams are only essential for an application.
Thanks,
Start from Use Case - define, who will use your application(actors) and what they will do with it(use cases). Also, join close use cases into subsystems.
Component diagram - what main parts the system has and what info they will send to each other and if some part belongs to another
Go on with State machine - define what states will have your components and on what reasons can they change they states to other ones.
Deployment diagram will define on what PCs will these components live and about the connections/protocols/interfaces between them
Plan your user interfaces - now only the set of pages and frames and navigation between them and commands on them. Do not solve placing and colors yet
Class diagrams for every component
If for for some of your classes some instances are specifically important, use object diagram.
Draw the look of the UI
Code.
UML is there to help you. Pick only what you need. You'll hardly ever need all diagram types. Plus, it is convenient for the reader if he needs to know only a predefined UML subset to understand your draft.
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.
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.
Can anyone tell which UML diagram I should change if there is a slight change in the design of application.
The change is -> Earlier the application was using Active directory for authentication now I want to use the Membership provider instead.
I want to keep the change minimum in diagrams.
Thanks
Sounds like component diagrams or class diagrams. Check out the following topics and illustrations for VS 2010 Ultimate RC:
UML Component Diagrams: Reference at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd409390%28VS.100%29.aspx:
A component diagram shows the parts of a design for a software system. A component diagram helps you
visualize the high-level structure of the system and the service behavior that those pieces provide
and consume through interfaces.
UML Class Diagrams: Reference at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd409437%28VS.100%29.aspx
A UML class diagram describes the object and information structures used by your application, both
internally and in communication with its users. It describes the information without reference to any
particular implementation.
It will surely depend the diagrams at your disposal. Sound like a correction in one of the static diagram types, like the component diagram ...
This of course depends on how you structure your documents and your uml-diagrams.
In general I have a Conceptual model, Class Diagram and a Design Diagram which are diractly linked to the architecture. And then you should in most cases have System Sequence Diagrams and more. However, depending on how your structure is and to minimize the "changes" required.
I would suggest that you use something more generic for the parts that might be changed. Active Directory Authentication and Membership Provider Authentication is both Authentication methods, which means that you can, instead of displaying the whole sequence at the Authentication step, just use "Authentication".
Now, in the conceptual models and in the design + class diagrams, you will need to change and add some fields, tables or whatever is added. But it shouldn't matter if you need to add more or less, because the documents need to reflect upon your software as accurate as possible.
So, to minimize changes, use more generic types.