I have to develop an integration concept to integrate my software as a subsystem into an enterprise information system which communicates with other information systems in other institutions.
I want to show a diagram which explains how the several subsystems are connected and which data is communicated between the subsystems. My problem is that I'm not sure if there is in the UML language a diagram-type that supports modeling of complete information systems.
I thought about the deployment diagram, but I am not sure if it is the right. I don't want to start an then recognize that it is the wrong way.
Is there any advice which diagram should be used, or if there is an alternative modeling language for complex information systems?
A component diagram is what you want - see chapter 25 of "The Unified Modeling Language User Guide".
I want to show a diagram which explains how the several subsystems work together and which data is communicated between the subsystems.
I'd probably start with a conceptual sequence diagram.
So, for example, you could have your lifelines represent the various components that you're integrating with, and your interactions could be any of the messages that need to transfer to and from those components.
Related
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 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
I'm developing a 3 tier based system , the user passes data to the server which performs server side processing and queries a database etc the usual stuff. I'm wonder should I include the database in the diagram as an actor ?. I have already included the server as well as the end user
Thanks.
If you're developing the full system then no, don't include the DB as an Actor. I wouldn't recommend showing the Server either.
The purpose of a UCD is to show the system context in terms of the features (Use Cases) it supports and for whom those features are provided (Actors). UCDs deliberately don't show internal structure - so you focus on the Users and their Needs without getting sidetracked by implementation concerns.
Since the Server and DB are part of your system they're "design detail" for how you realise the Use Cases. Therefore the don't sit outside your system, therefore they're not Actors. The only time I'd recommend putting other systems on a UCD is when (a) they're external to the system you're building and (b) provide or receive some value to/from it.
UML provides other diagrams for showing the internal components of the system:
Deployment diagrams show physical hardware and allocation of software components to them
Component Diagrams allow you to show the logical structure of the application
Sequence Diagrams or Activity Diagrams allow you to show how a Use Case is realised in terms of its logical components
(Note I'm not suggesting you use all those, just what's useful).
hth.
i think the web servers and the database should labeled as the system, users or external third parties could be actors!
We have been asked to produce a logical application and infrastructure diagram for an existing system which is in the process of been transferred to a different server. After some searching on Google we have not found any guidance on what this sort of diagram should containing, does anyone have any links or suggestions?
Probably what you need is to create UML diagrams, you can use CASE Applications like MS VISIO, Enterprise Architect (EA), StarUML for generating such diagrams.
Component Diagram
Logical Deployment Diagram
For reading more about UML see:
http://www.tutorialspoint.com/uml/uml_deployment_diagram.htm
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.