Hello fellow ranchers, Any thoughts, opinions, or truths you could provide on the following subject will be much appreciated! I'm modeling an entity bean that has dependent objs on a class diagram, but am unsure how to stereotype the dependent objs. I've done a lot of reading on the subject, but am still unsure. In short, I have one class, THE entity bean itself which is stereotyped as <<entity>>... I've considered stereotyping the dependent objs as <<entity>> as well, and just explaining that they are dependent objs of a coarse-grained entity in my design document. I've also considered stereotyping them as <<persistent>> (a generic stereotype I found in the UML spec), or not stereotyping them at all in the diagram. Is there any standard or preferred way to depict this relationship visually?
Also, while I'm at it, what about the <<control>> stereotype -- in my Class Diag, I am planning on stereotyping all classes that will be Session EJBs as <<control>>. What about classes that are not going to be session EJBs, but *do* sometimes manage other objects (i.e., event handlers in the EJB Command Pattern, like in Petstore). Should these also be stereotyped as <<control>>, or is that misleading/overkill? Thanks, and cheers, David
SCEA [part 1], SCJD
This will take every ounce of my mental strength! All for a tiny ad:
SKIP - a book about connecting industrious people with elderly land owners