I have three object :object1,objectA,objectB .
and also have an interface
How can I model as the following:
an object1 provides an interface from objectA to objectB
There are two immediate interpretations of what you want. Either you have an interface ("Interface1") that acts as a shared interface implemented by ClassA and ClassB OR you want the interface to be the way that ClassA and ClassB interact. I'm not sure which you mean.
In any case, the first option, where the interface is implemented by both is modelled like this:
The second option, where the interface is used to allow interaction is modelled like this:
If I understand your question correctly, that is you want to create an UML diagram in where one class implements interface (Producer) and another uses it (Consumer) then I would say you'd have few choices:
1) Denote inteface explicitely, and use realization relationship to indicate implementation of interface, and dependency relationship to indicate usage:
2) Use lollipop notation to denote exposed interface, and dependency to indicate usage.
3) Use ball and socket notation (UML 2.0)
Related
I have class Controller in my java project, which has method like this:
As you can see, in the first line I am getting Singleton instance of ActualModes class and call method getActualModes().
So the first question is, which relatinship I should use in class diagram.
After that I am creating new instane of ModeContext class and then call method executeStrategy. In this case, which relatiship is better ?
It should be like this:
Access to the singleton (note the stereotype which is just convenient and no obligation or general standard) is anonymous and so you just have a dependency. The ModeContext in contrast uses a private (I don't know the scoping rules of the language you used, so I made it pivate) property called context. Note the dot which is saying exactly that.
Disclaimer: UML does not specify a mapping between Java and UML, so every answer to your question is open for debate.
I think both relationships are dependencies, drawn as dashed arrows from Controller to ActualModes and from Controller to ModeContext. The definition of 'dependency' according to the UML 2.5 specification (§7.8.4.1) is:
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.
An example of a type of relationship which is in my opinion less suited, is the association, although its definition (§11.5) is quite broad:
An Association classifies a set of tuples representing links between typed instances. (...) An Association specifies a semantic relationship that can occur between typed instances.
One could argue that there are links between Controller and the other two classes, in the form of variables, but these variables are local method variables, which exist only temporarily during the execution of the method. Associations represent more durable links, e.g. class members - as far as I understand UML and as far as I have seen associations used in practice.
A few query and opinions to seek on the best type of relationship and representation to be used in a class diagram for modelling with uml
1) Third party library used by my class
-- I have modeled them as packages
2) Wrapper Class to wrap around modified code
-- I have modeled this class as an interface
3) My wrapper class actually use non-class member function that is written in another namespace
-- This puzzled me. How should I modeled them?
4) For classes in my own created library(dll), how do i differentiate the class that is exported and those that is not
Thanks
1) That's fine. However, it depends on the layer. I could think of a component to represent a library.
2) Not necessary. A wrapper inherits from a class. So use a generalization.
3) You can not really do that. You might use an artifact and a relation (association) to it.
4) I would use a component with interfaces (lollipops) to show the exported ones. The others are kept inside.
For all answers: YMMV
I am attempting to understand how I should use the realization of interfaces and the implementation of abstract classes in UML. I came across the post at https://stackoverflow.com/a/13438187/700543 whereby the poster states that pure virtual methods are interfaces whilst those that are part pure virtual methods are abstract classes. Is anyone able to give me a real world scenario and not one based on code?
An Interface is only a "class skeleton" for library users to extend, and as you said, methods cannot be implemented. An Abstract class can have implemented methods. I will give you a real life example:
Imagine I provide an Interface for people to implement sorting functions and I also provide a Class for bench marking sorting functions. My bench marking class only needs to know what methods of the Interface it needs to call in order to perform the bench marking, it does not know how they are implemented. Therefore, inside the bench marking class you might only see something like sortInterfaceInstace.getNumberOfSwap(), whereas sortInterfaceInstance is only known to be of sortInterface type at compile time, and not of any specific user sort implementation.
If you need implemented methods, use abstract instead of interfaces.
An interface only describes how something can be used, it provides none of the underlying implementation of how it gets done, i.e. a class with only pure virtual functions. An English analogy for an interface may be an adjective.
One example of an interface is a Movable interface. This interface may provide one pure virtual function move which tells the object to move to a given location. However, how it moves there is not implemented.
An abstract class on the other hand differs from an interface in that it provides some of the implementation details, but not all of them. These are conceptually high-level items that can be manipulated in certain ways, but when you get down to it the high-level item doesn't really exists or make sense by itself.
For example, say we have an abstract Shape class. The shape can have a certain origin which can be tracked independent of what Shape it is. The functions to transform the shape can be declared and implemented in the Shape class, saving the hassle of having to provide the same implementation in each sub-class. However, when you try to get the area or perimeter of the shape it's difficult to answer this without knowing more about the shape.
How do i model a call to a static method in a class diagram ? Can someone show me a link to a class diagram that has done that?
for example there's a class called Animal. and i have another class called Vertibrates, and it has a method which is static (and this is the only method in that class). My Animal class will be using this static method of the class Vertibrate. Therefore how can i model it in class diagram ?
You don't. Well, not in a class diagram at least. Instead, you should use sequence chart diagrams to express method calls (whether static or dynamic).
You can't model the call directly in a class diagram (as #Imontrieux says), but you can model the relationship (i.e., that Animal uses (calls) static methods in Vertibrate; BTW, the correct spelling is Vertebrate), which I suspect is actually what you meant.
You use a UML dependency for this, not an association (since the latter are for associations between instances of the classes at each end)--- see How to show usage of static methods UML Classdiagram.
Great question. One thing the GoF do in Design Patterns is used notes to demonstrate intended uses. For example, from the section on the Command Pattern:
Command Pattern
While #user1315906 is technically correct that you don't model such things in Class Diagrams, but rather in Use Case or Sequence Diagrams, if it makes sense to note how something is intended to be used in a Class Diagram, you can use a note :)
I recently read in "Professional C# 4 and .NET 4" that:
You can never instantiate an interface.
But periodically I see things like this:
IQuadrilateral myQuad;
What are the limitations in using interfaces directly (without having a class inherit from the interface)? How could I use such objects (if they can even be called objects)?
For example instead of using a Square class that derives from IQuadrilateral, to what extent could I get away with creating an interface like IQuadrilateral myQuad?
Since interfaces don't implement methods, I don't think I could use any methods with them. I thought interfaces didn't have fields to them (only properties), so I'm not sure how I could store data with them.
The answer is simple, you can't instantiate an interface.
The example you provided is not an example of instantiating an interface, you are just defining a local variable of the type IQuadrilateral
To instantiate the interface, you would have to do this:
IQuadrilateral myQuad = new IQuadrilateral();
And that isn't possible since IQuadrilateral does not have a constructor.
This is perfectly valid:
IQuadrilateral myQuad = new Square();
But you aren't initiating IQuadrilateral, you are initiating Square and assigning it to a variable with the type IQuadrilateral.
The methods available in myQuad would be the methods defined in the interface, but the implementation would be based on the implementation in Square. And any additional methods in Square that are not part of the IQuadrilateral interface would not be available unless you cast myQuad to a Square variable.
You can't create an instance of an interface.
The code you showed defines a variable of type IQuadrilateral. The actual instance this variable points to will always be of a concrete class implementing this interface.
Background Knowledge
Think of an interface as a contract. In a contract between two people, it defines what is capable, what is expected from the parties involved. In programming, it works the same way. The interface defines what to expect, what must exist for you to conform to that interface. Therefore, since it only defines what to expect, it itself, doesn't provide the implementation, the "code under the covers" so to speak, does.
A property behaves like a field, but allows you to intercept when someone assigns a value to it or reads the value. You can also deny reading or writing to it, your choice when you define the property. Interfaces work with properties instead of fields because of this. Since the "contract" is just defining what property should be there (name and type), and if it should allow a read or write capabilities, it leaves it up to the implementer to provide this.
Take for example the IEnumerator interface from the .NET framework. This interface was designed to allow iteration over a collection of objects. The purpose is not to change items, or randomly access them, it's just for getting object A and moving to the next, and the next, and the next, as many times as needed. Many collection type classes implement this: Queue, ArrayList, SortedList, Stack, etc. All these types of objects store many objects and now they all share the common "contract": the ability to iterate one-by-one over them.
However, you can see that the IEnumerator interface has a MoveNext() method declared. Why? This is because the items may not be served in the same manner. For example, people will generally access the ArrayList from the first item to the last. But a Stack was designed opposite, for people to access the last object down to the first.
Questions Answered
With all this knowledge, the limitation of declaring a variable as the interface type as opposed to the class type that implemented the interface is that you only get access to what the interface (the contract) says should be there. The benefit though is that you can assign to this variable any class type that implements the interface.