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.
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 discuss with my friend our project and we are in a way to draw the sequence diagram ( UML 2).
He told me that the sequence diagram is drawn by the use case. It means that for each use case we should draw a Sequence Diagram.
Is it correct ?
Thank you for any suggestion.
Well, taken as dogma it is not correct. A sequence diagram (SD) shows the behavior of objects in the way they interchange messages (and also if needed their lifetime and some minor additional information). You "can" also use a sequence diagram to describe scenarios in use cases. But simply speaking, a SD is more technically oriented (class design/programmers) rather than business (business design/stakeholders). To visualize a use case scenario you're better off using activity diagrams (AD). And even better if you dive into BPMN (which brings ADs to a new level).
It is possible though, to convert ADs to SDs and vice versa without information loss (if you forget about the afore mentioned bits and pieces).
Now another point: you will not necessarily need a diagram for each use case. I found that often use cases are more easily (and even clearly) described in a textual way (see Cockburn or Bittner/Spence) rather than diagrammatically. Especially if you have UC scenarios that are very linear in their single actions. So you can leave out the AD for those and just fall back to simple text. You should further avoid describing UC scenarios in both ways (i.e. text and diagram) as this introduces unwanted redundancy (means you would need to maintain always both when changes happen; and they happen often; and people are lazy -> so which one holds the truth: text or diagram?).
Generally, as Thomas points out, use case detail is set forth in an activity diagram. As he also mentions, a use case scenario would use a sequence diagram, when necessary. A use case scenario is a single path through a use case.
Sequence diagrams aren't good at diagramming multiple simultaneous behaviors and multiple decision points, and use cases generally have both of these features in their behavior. Activity diagrams do these things very well. A single path through a use case, by definition, doesn't have simultaneous behaviors and decision points, so a sequence diagram is more appropriate.
Googling "use case scenario sequence diagram" gives a number of links that explain the use of sequence diagrams for use case scenarios in detail, of which this is an example.
UseCase is declaration of behavior (service or usefull behavior) of system which is executed by system with collaboration (interaction) with system's actors.
Any type of diagram defined in UML could by used to describe behavior on any level of abstraction. All of diagrams could be also used to describe both business or technical aspects of system.
UseCase is declaration of behavior, it means that UseCase does not define behavior at all. UML does not define scenarios of UseCase ,scenarios are usually defined in methodology not in UML.
If you need to describe behavior of system in context of UseCase you can use some of behavior diagrams defined in UML for each UseCase.
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 not sure if this is a good question as I'm unsure if there's any agreement on the subject. However due to the lack of information in the internet I'm compelled to ask anyways.
Let's say I'm making a system that is mainly object-oriented, with its corresponding UML diagrams (use-case, class, colaboration, etc). However, none of the UML diagrams are helpful when dealing with the database, which should be relevant for the developing team so they can know what exists in the database and what does not.
There are two ways to represent a database: Entity-Relationship and Relational (it's unknown to me if there are more, but those two are relevant within the relational database paradigm). ER deals with the representation of the BD in terms of business rules, and Relational deals with the actual, physical implementation. But none are "UML standard" (unless I'm missing something here).
Which modeling should I use, and why? Is ER relevant in terms of UML, or should I stick to relational? Thank you beforehand.
If you want to use UML only, you could use limited class diagrams - without m-n associations and methods. But if you are using some class-table mapping tools, you can use anything, except m-n relationships only.
Nobody had ever said that you can use Class diagram for OOP classes only. You can use them for any more or less formal concepts, if their needs can be covered by the complex of CD elements. I use class diagrams for UI planning and even formal text planning. And tables are very close to classes. So, no problem.
You can use data model diagrams, if you need something that is CALLED data diagram. But they are covered by class diagrams fully. That is the reason they are not supported anymore.
Your task is to make the model understandable for everybody, who can get it in hands. Class diagram is the most widely known UML diagram. A good title and a pair of comments will resolve all possible misunderstandings.
Both are different ER diagrams are relationship of entities and UML diagrams are behaviour of Ojects how they communicate with each other, as per my view point DFD (data flow diagram) is option. It has different levels which is based on number of processes and will better explain about data entities.
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.