Originally posted by VamC Poondla:
Some of the patterns are too difficult to miss. For example CommandManager etc specify that it uses Command Pattern. But I had a section for Design Patterns alone in my arch doc. I specified why I choose that pattern in that context and what I am gaining by that.
Ok, so you did not actually draw the classes which for the command pattern then ? You just marked that component representing the pattern with prefixing its name (and then explain the actual pattern in the doc) ?
Originally posted by VamC Poondla:
Coming to Component Diagram, it contains different components in the system packaged according to the tier they belong to. And I specified all associations between the components.
I think my UML Compiance is bad. I used UML 2.0 for Component and Class diagrams. But UML 1.4 notation for Interaction Diagrams.
Ok, some final questions:
Which tool did you use to draw all the required diagrams ? I'm using togetherJ but this is not yet UML 2.0 compliant. For the sequence and class diagram I dont really think you need 2.0, but maybe for the component diagram... Can you tell us how many artifacts were on your component diagram ?
Finally: you say that you packaged the components per tier. That means that you have a part with only components belonging to the web application right ? Did you express the use of patterns here ? ex. did you cleary indicate with the required classes that you use MVC (for example) ? Or did you just show the
JSP components and the interaction with the business tier.
Thanks