I am not a big fan of UML. I believe UML is great in some rare instances, however I do not want to use a UML diagram to show a high level flow of calls through my application. Problem is - most of the tools (visio, lucidchart, websequencediagrams) force the user to either draw a very detailed UML diagram, or a sequence diagram. There is nothing that would be like a high-level version of a UML diagram. Or is there?
There is no such thing as a "higher level" UML diagram. UML has 12 (or was it 12? I can't remember) and you must choose from one of them, the best that fits your needs.
For a high level flow of calls I like activity diagrams, even though the objects that own the functions are harder to see. Sequence diagrams are a waste of time and space IMHO .
Related
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 new to UML. I have studied more tutorials.I learned two broad categories like,
UML Diagrams:
1. Structural Diagrams
Class diagram
Object diagram
Component diagram
Deployment diagram
2. Behavioral Diagrams
Use case diagram
Sequence diagram
Collaboration diagram
Statechart diagram
Activity diagram
But I dont know which one is high level design and low design. Anyone list out the UML diagram types based on priorities. (high-level diagrams to low level)
There is not really a well-defined order of higher-level versus lower-level diagram languages in UML. The same diagram language (e.g. class diagrams) can be used at different levels of abstraction. For instance, a conceptual information model, but also a Java data model, can be expressed as a class diagram.
Generally, a use case diagram is higher-level, since it describes requirements, while a deployment diagram is lower-level, since it describes system deployment structures.
But all other diagrams languages can be used at different levels of abstraction.
UML diagrams - from the most common to most detailed level.
Please, notice, that nowadays (the start of 2014) there are no special instrument for UI modelling. So, I'll explain how to do this part of work, too, with the tools we have. But they will be used in a less or more nonstandard way.
Human level. Use case diagrams and state machines. How people will work with the system.
Use cases are about what the system does, who works with it and maybe, grouping of those subjects. Subsystems can be defined here. Try not to show much structure or behaviour. Not to use any IT slang!
State machines show what states the system, subsystems and actors can have and what actions/events can happen in these states and to which other states can it lead. Not to use any IT slang!
Do not forget, that administrators, programmers and testers are users of the system, too. So, plan not only how the system helps to the work of the common user and his senior, but also to the installation/administration/testing/support processes. Don't forget to continue this work on all deeper diagraming levels. These use cases/state machines needn't be so human-oriented.
You can draw activities, sequence, timing diagrams for some dialogues between Actors and subsystems, if they are the part of the requirements. Or make them the part of requirements if they are important. Not to use any IT slang!
Draw the sketches for the UI and talk over them with client. The work on UI art design should be connected to UI planning and realization
Start to work on User Guide - create plan and structure. (I use class diagrams for that).
Deployment and component diagrams. Here you are starting to imagine the inner construction of your system
Components - What compact parts it has. It needn't have much in common with the subsystems, as user see them. Only some components are visible to the user. You could decide on the use of some interfaces between them. Think on the license problems of the third-party components.
Deployment - how the components could be distributed among PCs. The same question about interfaces, but more from the physical side.
A special deployment diagram for license politics of your product could be drawn, too. You can use other diagrams for it, as well. It is at your choice.
You could already plan your user interface by these diagrams, too. In MVC (model-viewer-controller) construction only the components of the controller level are mutually connected and obviously need this level modelling. But the viewer layer (UI) components are connected in a conceptual way, they should be, for the sake of user. So, it should be planned too, by the same diagrams.
On this level you also plan the architecture of the development environment. It consists of components, too.
Draw Interaction Overview and Communication diagrams to see the cooperation of components as a whole or in complex groups.
Package, activities, sequence, timing diagrams
Package diagrams are for planning the hierarchy of your code and mutual visibility of its parts. Don't forget the place for testing packages, too. Notice, that the structures of packages and components hierarchies are different, but they have to work together. It is very important part, frequently overlooked.
Use behavioral diagrams for better understanding how different processes could run.
System analysis - the class diagrams level.
Some important classes could appear on the previous level diagrams - as definitions of intercomponent interfaces or subjects of processes. But now you should do all of them. Minimally a diagram for a component. You should do these class diagrams, using ready package diagrams.
Plan the content of UI, defining elements and functonalities and connections between them WITHOUT choosing the concrete components. Use diagrams that you like. Class ones are usable, but in not standard reading.
Deeper insight
If you have instances with specific behavior, use Object diagrams for their planning.
If you have some very complex classes or their tight groups, use Composite Structure Diagrams.
UI: Plan the content of screen elements WITH choice of the UI components (frames, buttons and so on) and connecting functionalities to them. On this level you can again use class/object and sequence/timing diagrams.
Code. Really, the coding, at least on the prototype level starts already on the stage of component planning. You have to control if and how different technologies will cooperate. But the real coding should be done only after you are sure you understand what are you doing. And to create all or some correct diagrams is the best way to be sure in it.
Notice the rule of thumb - structure diagrams set the sequence of levels. Behavioral diagrams support them on all levels. You can use state machine on the lowest level and timing diagram for to discuss with a client. But try not to mix the levels with the structural diagrams!
Also, do not try to mix diagrams, especially behavioral with structural ones. You should clearly set the rules, by which you can say, what part of information can be on the diagram and what not. And break these rules really only in the most exceptional cases.
As gwag noted, there is no separation of UML diagrams into high and low levels. The different diagrams are used for describing different aspects, not different levels, of a (software) system.
But if you look at UML in a broader context, the Unified Modelling Language is just one of a whole family of modelling languages standardized by OMG. These different languages do have more specific scopes.
SysML (Systems Modelling Language) shares many features with UML and looks very similar, but is specifically intended for the higher levels of systems analysis / design. It also includes a visual representation of requirements, which are conspicuously absent from UML.
Another related language is BPMN (Business Process Model and Notation), which is used for business processes. So you could for instance use BPMN for business analysis, SysML for system design and UML for software design.
UML does not specify level of details you define in diagram. Every diagram can be used for description on business level, implementation or design level as well.
It is up to modeler, what type of diagram uses to descrbe modeled system. Information in diagrams must correspond with each other and all diagrams must give complet view on system.
For example, you can declare services of Bank company using UseCase on business level or use UseCase to declare services implemented by concret physical component of program writen in Java.
What is the practical difference between using flowchart diagrams and UML activity diagrams?
I have some thoughts, but maybe I'm missing an elephant in the room?
Flowchart diagram:
Widely used;
Easily understood by non-programmers;
Old?
UML Activity diagram:
Standardized;
Supports concurrency;
Less known syntax, but still simple enough.
For my case of ad-hoc documenting a particular block of application logic, I decided to go with the flowchart diagrams. More people in the company will be able to understand them.
It might seem as a preference, but if we have a standardized language for describing software systems, Why do we use something else? This can lead to bad habit of overusing flowcharts. Activity diagrams are really simple. But if you decide to describe a more complicated aspect of the system or try to change the part you are describing, you might have to switch anyway. So just use UML and prevent confusion in the future.
As you note, Activity diagrams inherently can include concurrency and timing. If you look at this example cribbed from Wikipedia, shown below, you can observe the section with two heavy horizontal bars, and two parallel activities of "present idea" and "record idea". That is read as "start these activities in parallel, and continue only when both are complete." Flowcharts can't express this within the notation.
Practically, using activity diagrams lets you think clearly about concurrent processes. I think you'll find that anyone who can read a flowchart will quickly adapt.
Activity diagram by spanish Wikipedia user Gwaur CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons:
According to the Agile Modeling site:
In many ways UML activity diagrams are the object-oriented equivalent of flow charts and data flow diagrams (DFDs) from structured development.
From IBM:
However, flow charts do not include And states, and flow charts for operations cannot receive events.
Probably this is why flow charts are easier to understand because activity diagrams have the notion of object-oriented development and concurrency.
You can generate source code from UML, and vice versa; hence the "standardized" characteristic you talked about.
UML in itself is used to share your understanding. Share the understanding in a standardized way. Since your case is ad hoc and the primary usage of an UML diagram is to provide an informal sketch, activity diagram can be used here. But so can flow charts as there are no parellism involved here. I have always found the following argument to be helpful. The artifct that i am producing is going to benefit whom? And can i express the flow in a self explanatory way using a flow chart. And if yes, then you should go ahead and use flow chart. But if your class diagrams, sequence etc are in UML format, it would make sense to have your activity diagrams in UML as well for consistency sake(The argument here would be, if people can understand class,sequence UML semantics, then y not activity diagrams.).
What's the difference between sequence diagrams and scenario diagrams in UML?
I think you mean System Sequence Diagram (SSD) and Sequence Diagram.
The purpose of SSD is to illustrate a particular use-case scenario in a visual format where the system appears as a black box.
Sequence Diagram, on the other hand, shows how system objects interact over time for achieving a particular scenario of a use-case.
"Scenarios" per your link aren't diagrams, they're narrative text. They're also called "Use Case Narratives" among other terms. They are approximately equivalent to other behaviour specifications (sequence diagrams, activity diagrams).
There are generally three differences:
Format. Scenarios are textual, sequence/activity diagrams are, well, diagrams
Content. Textual narrative is often used to describe the sequence of interactions between the user and the "system" in Use Case descriptions. Hence there are usually only two participants (User & System). In contrast, sequence diagrams are primarily used to show how behaviour is distributed among objects. Consequently there will usually be more than two participants.
Formality. Narratives are often used earlier in the cycle to get an idea of what's needed. Consequently they're often less formal than Sequence diagrams - which typically show inter-object messages ("method calls").
For examples of tools that do this, take a look at websequencediagrams.com. Or search for "free UML tools".
There is no diagram type called scenario. Maybe you are thinking of collaboration?
Sequence and collaboration diagrams are actually the same: the Sequence depicts the chronology while the Collaboration depicts the interactions between the collaborators. Together (a tool that was around a decade ago) used to let you literally just change the setting and see the diagram in the other mode.
I use OmniGraffle (Mac). It's great for class diagrams. Has support for Sequence diagrams but not Collaboration.