Originally posted by Sridhar Raman001:
The objects in my sequence diagram don't correspond to a class in my class diagram. Will this be a problem? Sridhar
Hello, I hope this feedback will still be useful at this late date...
Although I cannot speak from experience with the
SCEA Part 2 (which
I am working on now), here is my point of view based on my
years of experience with UML and formal education on it.
First, all objects on sequence diagrams must have corresponding classes in your class diagram(s). In
J2EE related publications, however, the object
called "Client" is often used without a matching class, rather than the
typical "User" classifier. This might be an indication that a general "Client" would be acceptable for purposes of the SCEA part2.
Next, all messages (horizontal arrows) must be named or labeled with the
name of an operation that has been defined for the receiving class object in
the class diagram for that class. For purposes of architecture-level sequence diagrams, arguments and return types are usually omitted, but are allowed for clarity if you see fit. As people have mentioned here, the point is to make sure the examiner understands your intent and that you know what you're doing.
Finally, Notes are important to the clarity of the sequence diagram.
In the case of a "conceptual" Client object, the Client on one sequence diagram could represent a particular Object on some other, perhaps higher-level, sequence diagram.
I would appreciate any differing views from people that have passed the SCEA
Part 2 and 3.
