Win a copy of The Little Book of Impediments (e-book only) this week in the Agile and Other Processes forum!
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

UML notation For high level design

 
Dhiren Joshi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 463
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have some doubts on UML modeling notation for using in architecture level design.

1} Is it necessary to show the live cycle bar on message to the correct size and all subsequent message bars matching. I am having a difficult time trying to do it since I hadnt done so and changing it on my existing design is causing lot of issues in Rose.
2) The UML notation for the arrows are different for procedural ,return etc. Currently I was showing simply as a plain arrow is that accepatable.



Thanks
Dhiren
[ February 14, 2005: Message edited by: Dhiren Joshi ]
 
Dhiren Joshi
Ranch Hand
Posts: 463
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
resurrecting the thread. Some one please help. I am not able to proceed becuase I have doubts that I may be using the wrong UML notations.

Thanks
Dhiren
[ February 14, 2005: Message edited by: Dhiren Joshi ]
 
Ajith Kallambella
Sheriff
Posts: 5782
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
By now you must have realized the scarcity of good UML examples

Here's my feel-good answer.

(1) Not worth changing it. An evaluator will probably pay more attention to the flow of messages than the lifecycle spans. You are very unlikely to get penalized for inaccurate representation of lifecycles.

(2) Stick with the standards and do not use solid lines everywhere. Even messages can be adorned with stereotypes, so it is necessary to show the difference where applicable. For instance, I'd certainly expect to see the difference between a normal synchronous message and an asynchronous message.
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic