question about the strategy to do part II

[Ali Reza Hosseini]

Hi,

Is it recommended to do part II the way sun teaches in course SL425?

This means to do..

1. A robustness analysis by creating high level collaboration diagrams for each use case with technology independent Jacobsen components (boundaries, controls and entities).

2. And then create an architectural model by creating component & deployment diagrams.

This implies than the collaboration/sequence diagrams do not necessarily need to deal with pattern or j2ee specific components. Do these components only appear in the architectural model by reification?

[jason white]

I started with sequence diagrams and everything evolved nicely from there.

I did spend a minimum of time at the beginning extending some classes in the class diagram but changed those as the sequence diagrams came along.

-jason

[Ali Reza Hosseini]

Originally posted by jason white:
I started with sequence diagrams and everything evolved nicely from there.

I did spend a minimum of time at the beginning extending some classes in the class diagram but changed those as the sequence diagrams came along.

-jason

jason,

the question is: does a sequence diagram have to deal with all those objects derived by pattern usage or specific technology e.g. EJB.

you can make a sequence diagram with boundaries, controls and entities,
whitout taking care about business delegates, service locators or home interfaces of some ejbs. is this way advisable?

i think it is, because if you had to take all those technical objects into
play, the sequence diagrams would get humongous and a little bit unreadable.

what do you mean?