• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Component Representation

 
johnone wilsonone
Greenhorn
Posts: 10
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Most UML tools represent graphical components as rectangles with two small rectangle prongs on the LHS.

But Poseidon graphical represntation is just the rectangle with <<component>> inside, is this valid UML notation? ( or can it be changed )
[ December 10, 2004: Message edited by: johnone wilsonone ]
 
Deepak Pant
Ranch Hand
Posts: 446
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
No I don't think that is a valid representation. Most tools (TogetherJ, Rational) and UML Books (UML Distilled, SCEA Cade Book) depict it using a big rectangle with two small rectangles coming out.

But I think you can mention this in your assumptions
 
Renaud FLORQUIN
Greenhorn
Posts: 18
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
UML 2 notation for component is a simple rectangle with a stereotype (or icon), and the rectangle with two small rectangle prongs is the UML 1.X old notation ...
See S. Ambler: http://www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/componentDiagram.htm

Renaud
 
johnone wilsonone
Greenhorn
Posts: 10
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
thanks
 
I Roberts
Ranch Hand
Posts: 66
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Just to add, I think you decide to use UML 2.0 you need to state it within your supporting documentation. UML 1.5 is the current official UML specification but UML 2.0 is expected to be released early in 2005. I think both versions of the specification will be accepted as soon as UML 2.0 is released but I'm not sure if UML 2.0 is allowed at present.

However, taking into consideration that the assignment does not state a specific UML version or actually the "official" UML version, so long as it is recognised by the OMG (i.e. the governing body of UML) it should be acceptable within the assignment.

UML 2.0 is far richer but much more complex than UML 1.x so I would recommend anyone using UML 2.0 (or UML 1.x for that matter) to make sure that they adhere to the appropriate specification (i.e. UML 2.0 or UML 1.5).

Hope this helps!?
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic