SCJP 1.5, SCEA, ICED (287,484,486)
Originally posted by Ramon Gill:
Anil,
I'm not a guru but I'll answer as best I can. Hopefully, some others can answer as well, as i'd be interested in other points of view.
1. yes. No classes in component diagrams (see Cade). I think the class diagram is more applicable to the Sequence diagram. Its the Sequence diagram that ties the Class & Component diagrams together (see Cade examples).
2. Personally, if you need to show an interface to an external system thats fine, but I don't think this is related to classes in the class diagram. Cade shows a number of interfaces other than the example you gave with none of them in the class diagram.
3. I think you can have 'components' that may not be obvious from the class diagram, but keep classes out.
4. Check Cades Component diagrams. He uses a Service Locator to link between Web and EJB tiers only, not between EJB components. I think this is a good choice from Cade, and doesn't add clutter.
5. Do we need to drop down to this level? I would tend to stick to higher level architectural components (i.e. the basics).
Ray
Originally posted by Ramon Gill:
You shouldn't show classes in the component diagram, but if you do it will become too large. Cade shows DAO 'components'. When you look at the accompanying sequence diagrams, these show how the DAO components access classes.
Even if you use entity beans you can still use Cade's approach. You could add some notes to state the persistence being used.
Ray
1. yes. No classes in component diagrams (see Cade). I think the class diagram is more applicable to the Sequence diagram. Its the Sequence diagram that ties the Class & Component diagrams together (see Cade examples).
3. I think you can have 'components' that may not be obvious from the class diagram, but keep classes out.
SCJP 1.5, SCEA, ICED (287,484,486)