It never even occurred to me to put JSP's, DAO's, EJB's, or anything else with a three letter acronym into my class diagram. I spent only one day on the class diagram, and it was very simple. Maybe I am not the best authority on the subject because I only got 31/40 on the class diagram, but I really can't imagine going to such lengths as putting JSP's in the class diagram. Why, you'd have to pay me!
Perhaps you are right. Maybe showing MVC in the class diagram will get you a better score. But I personally didn't mention MVC in any of my diagrams, so I'm not qualified to say how one should take such an approach. Have you thought, though, if JSP is THE view, then where does that leave the Java application for the travel agents? Will they require an independent view architecture? Good luck with your assignment!
Hi Bagwan, What do U think should be put in class diagram? This is something I'm not sure. High level? Using <<boundary>>, <<control>>, <<entity>> in class and sequence diagrams? And only mention J2EE stuff in component diagram? Thanks. Jim
My personal feeling is that it wouldn't hurt to make the class diagram overly complicated, because if you look at Sun's grading criteria, 75% of the grade is addressing requirements, and only 25% is for UML compliance. They don't seem to be taking points off for having TOO MUCH stuff in the diagrams. When I did the assignment, I noted this, and knew that my diagrams were very basic, but I wasn't worried about it, because I had a bunch more ideas for things that I could add if I got a failing grade. I was quite sure I would pass with what I already had, though. Still, I think that having JSP's in the class diagram would be a bit much. Just my personal opinion.