I currently work on a rather large system that consists of a WinForms app that uses WCF services and a database at the bottom. If you think about a use case or a requirement, what a developer needs is a quick overview of the implementation of that particular use case (or requirement). A person who knows the systems could very quickly verbally explain that these two views (or subviews) are used in the UI, they are data-bound to this controller, which uses this WCF service to get this DTO. The service uses this business class, which uses this data adapter, and the data is in these tables in the database.
I think in most cases it would be possible to convey all this information in a single diagram. However, it would be a kind of a hybrid between component and activity diagrams as it shows both workflow and the components that are involved. UML obviously doesn't have such a diagram, but I was wondering if anyone has done anything on these lines and what tools you have used.
I dont think activity diagram is appropriate here. Activity diagrams, as far as i believe are intended for somebody to understand how the module/system works without getting into the technical part. But then if you can express all that what you said in an activity digram and if your team and your audience are able to decipher things, then sure. Getting back to your scenario, i have done this before and a UML sequence diagram has helped me here. A sequence diagram depicts sequential object interactions. You might wanna check it out
Related
What type of UML diagram should I use to model the parts of a web app?
For instance, lets say my parts are as followed:
Server
Database
Web App
Multiple APIs
The web app interacts with all the other parts in some way. From my research, the best options seem to be either component, deployment, or sequence.
Here's a general idea that I'm going for with my diagram, but I do not know which UML diagram this would best be represented in.
If you know the diagram I should use, I would like to know how each part is represented in the diagram. For example, in a deployment diagram, I know that a server/database would be nodes. And, APIs would possible be artifacts?
For designing a web app (or any other type of software application), following a best practice Model-View-Controller (MVC) codebase architecture, you first need to make an information design model, typically in the form of a UML class diagram, defining the model classes, or the "model", of your app. The "view" (or user interface) of your app is based on the model.
Your diagram attempts to model the deployment architecture of your app. But this question comes after choosing a codebase architecture and an information architecture.
You can find more explanations about the architecting process, and the code of several example web apps, in my book Web Applications with JavaScript or Java, which is also available as an open access online book.
This depends a lot on what you're wanting to model and communicate. All of the diagram types you mention would be useful ways to describe a web app. Each focuses on a different aspect of the web app -- component models are about software component structure (database, web app, apis), deployment models show how instances of these components are deployed into deployment nodes (servers, devices etc). Like Thomas says, this is a very broad question -- in essence you are asking how should you describe your web app's solution architecture which is not a trivial exercise. Is there something more specific I can help with -- can you narrow down what it is you want to show about your app?
Your start with the component diagrams is fine. Generally your question is too broad to be answered here, but a few bread crumbs anyway:
In a next step you can describe the single components which are hosted inside the single nodes. You can make the nodes navigable (means you have a composite diagram showing their guts) so you can place component instances showing their interfaces. The latter can be shown with either lollipops or as stereotyped classes which the single components implement. Following that you can break down components in a similar fashion showing how the components are implemented with various classes and how these realize the single interfaces. It's possible to show the interfaces outside the components and <<delegate>> them inside the specific classes.
The story goes on, but it's too big to be told here.
I'm trying to develop a web-app and some desktop apps, all of these apps communicates via database or socket tcp. These desktop apps are running in background so, there is no use cases and the web-app is only used by remote users.
And, these desktop apps communicates with the web-app via the DB and vis versa.
Which UML diagrams may help me to conceptualize the work of the desktop apps, please?
I've tried to conceptualize this thing using the deploiement diagram, but, I think that it's unsufficient to explain the whole work in a report. Isn't it ?
Thanks a lot!
If you read up on the theory of use case diagrams and actors, you will see that an actor (something that interacts with a use case) can be a person or another system.
In this case, since your app is running in the background, is must be triggered by something: by a person or by a job scheduler (=a system). That means that the triggering is done by an actor, since an actor can be a person or another software system.
So that means you have a use-case (your app) and an actor (scheduler or person). In that way your background app can be described as a use case in a use-case diagram, together with the rest of your system.
As Rolf Schorpion told, you can still use use case diagrams with systemic actors. Just make sure that actor is something external to the system (or part of the system). A typical actor can be Timer (if it is time-controlled).
Besides there is a plenty of UML-diagrams you can use. From the short desctiption you posted, I'd recommend the following set of diagrams (at least these are the diagrams I'd asked you to prepare in order to better understand the system you briefly described):
Mandatory:
Component diagram - showing structural organization of your system and their dependencies (desktop app, WEB app, DB are components)
Deployment diagram - showing the network organization, servers and how the previously defined components are actually deployed on server nodes
Sequence diagram(s) - showing the important communication scenarios between the components. You mentiones TCP, so this can be further refined and displayed using one or more sequence diagrams. It there is a standard communication pattern, a single sequence can be enough. Otherwise, several sequences can be used to cover all significant communucation scenaria
Optional:
Class diagrams - to specify internal components structure - design (blue print of the source code). I recommend this one only if there is a complex design in each compoennt, worth this effort. If not, it could be costly to keep the model in sync with the actual code.
State disgrams - if a class of componen show a behavior that could be modelled as a set of discrete states (e.g. ON, OFF, IN REPAIR, OUT OF ORDER), this diagram is very powerfull and highly recommendedn
Activity diagram - if you have some interesting non-trivial algorithms or simply want to show an overall system logic in terms of sequenced tasks, use activita diagrams.
These are the most common UML diagrams. Besides you have a couple of them more that couls be used in some special conditions (timing for example), but I'm sure you can model almost everything using only these. Use case is far from the first choice for UML modelling.
If you have some further questions or doubts, just ask.
I'm using enterprise architect and I want to know if there's a way to convert a sequence diagram into a communication diagram.
Any ideas?
Currently there is no automated process built into Enterprise Architect to achieve this but I believe it is penciled in for a future release?
However here are a couple of workarounds:
The first, depending on what elements you have used to create your sequence diagram (use objects not lifelines), is to reuse the same elements. Create a new collaboration diagram and drag the sequence elements from the Project Browser onto it. These will be exactly the same elements in both diagrams (so any name or attribute changes to one will be reflected in the other.
The second is to use Enterprise Architects Automation Interface or scripting engine to write a quick script that will do it for you. I remember one of this being available in the past, but you had to contact support#sparxsystems.com to get them to send you a copy.
I hope this helps!
RSA IBM and Omondo EclipseUML have this feature.
I am attempting to draw a UML diagram for the our web service dependencies. I need to break down how all the projects in our solution interact with different web services.
My initial thought what to use Communication Diagram but that did't seem like the right choice when I looked at some examples. Does anyone have any suggestions? Is there an industry standard? I did seethis question here as well but I am asking what TYPE of diagram do I choose.
Looks like according to this I should be using a Package Diagram
When it comes to systems integration, how do you model integration requirements? Do you use UML or BPMN or some other techniques?
What limitiations you see in existing approaches and what would be an ideal modeling approach to system integration requirements in your opinion?
This question is really broad and could be refined (e.g. what level of system?) if you desire a better answer. The approaches below have worked in my experience and were adopted broadly within a company. This may not work for your organization, but our is very application/data integration oriented and these methods help us track integration at high/flow/data entity levels. The key to success is not the ideal model, but a practical one with good training and examples/cheat sheets.
One UML model view that seems to work will for system integration at the component/interface level is a component diagram with components and then interface realizations and interface usages drawn out.
Also using the concept of information flow either UML or just lines with a definition. Then just pick your level of abstraction. Example: PeopleSoft --- (Person Details via File) -----> Active Directory --- (Groups via LDAP) ----> Training Tool.
BPMN is for business process really and though I really think it is great this is not where it should be used.
OMG has tried to answer to your question with the requirement diagram integrated in the sysml modeling langage. SysML tools providers try to solve your problem. For instance check out rational rhapsody solution.