when I draw sequence I find there are too many sequence diagrams and I am afraid my submission would be bigger than 1M. For example, I draw more than 4 diagrams for "prepare itinerary", including: 1. basic flow for customer, 2. basic flow for travel agent, 3. alternative flow for customer. 4. alternative flow for travel agent...
when I draw sequence I find there are too many sequence diagrams and I am afraid my submission would be bigger than 1M. For example, I draw more than 4 diagrams for "prepare itinerary", including: 1. basic flow for customer, 2. basic flow for travel agent, 3. alternative flow for customer. 4. alternative flow for travel agent...
How is the basic flow for customer different than travel agent? Maybe, there is a way you can consolidate the sequence diagram based on a 'user' action rather than 'customer' , 'travel agent', unless, you have identified different behavior for these 2 types of users.
I think somebody passed here in the forum with just four diagrams (for the use cases provided). I have a feeling that sequence diagrams is not the part that people usually fail for.
How is the basic flow for customer different than travel agent? Maybe, there is a way you can consolidate the sequence diagram based on a 'user' action rather than 'customer' , 'travel agent', unless, you have identified different behavior for these 2 types of users.
Parag
Parag,
Customer interacts with web tier/JSP/Servlet while Travel agent interacts with Swing, do you think we should model this difference in both Sequence diagram and Component diagram?
Customer interacts with web tier/JSP/Servlet while Travel agent interacts with Swing, do you think we should model this difference in both Sequence diagram and Component diagram?
Thanks, James
I have always been of that opinion that if we get the client tier (jsp, swing etc) to interact with the web tier (servlet, controllers etc)in a uniform way, then all we need to show is a client tier stereotype interacting with the web tier. That makes the diagram readable and simple. Although, there are many who would like to see jsp components in a component diagram and also in seq diagram. It all depends on what level of detail do you wish to show the archictecture. As it all comes down to personal preferences and what we believe is the best view of the system we are architecting. There are no right or wrong ways here.
I have always been of that opinion that if we get the client tier (jsp, swing etc) to interact with the web tier (servlet, controllers etc)in a uniform way, then all we need to show is a client tier stereotype interacting with the web tier. That makes the diagram readable and simple. Although, there are many who would like to see jsp components in a component diagram and also in seq diagram. It all depends on what level of detail do you wish to show the archictecture. As it all comes down to personal preferences and what we believe is the best view of the system we are architecting. There are no right or wrong ways here.
Parag
Parag,
Thanks for the quick reply.
This is a good choice. But, if both jsp client and swing client interact with web tier, should we specify in web tier the different controllers(servlet) to different client, and use different design patterns?
This is a good choice. But, if both jsp client and swing client interact with web tier, should we specify in web tier the different controllers(servlet) to different client, and use different design patterns?
James
Yeah, thats one of the ways to do it too. Also see the thread started by Tomi with regard to Swing Application directly interacting with either Web Tier or EJB Tier.
Parag
Post by:autobot
I am mighty! And this is a mighty small ad:
a bit of art, as a gift, the permaculture playing cards