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.
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.
Open Group Certified Distinguished IT Architect. Open Group Certified Master IT Architect. Sun Certified Architect (SCEA).
What are you doing? You are supposed to be reading this tiny ad!
the new thread boost feature brings a LOT of attention to your favorite threads