• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

Component diagram is a HIGHER level view of the system.

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 138
Java Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
As I am working on my assignment I just want to express concern on the fact that I have seen a lot of people having more components in their component diagram then classes in their class diagram and what worries me more they passed with flying colours.

As far as I am concerned although debatable(even in Martin Fowler's book i the debate is mentioned) a component should be more then one class/jsp a grouping that has a distinct purpose like a car engine is a component of a car .. so when I see people mentioning component diagrams of 37 components and class diagrams containing less(like 25 classes) I start wondering ... a lot.
The component diagram should be as simple as possible(again from my point of view) for a non-technical person to understand how the system is built. Like when I show somebody a car I don't discuss fuel injection and how many chips are in the engine but the wheels , engine and steering wheel to simplify as much as possible the view.
Also with the implementation of EJB 3.0 and JPA we do not need to show Entity classes or EJB session beans as componennts (just annotated classes).
Please comment on this.
PS : I have seen some architectural docs at work and they followed the same spirit.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 91
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi,

According to Chapter 9 in Humprey Sheil's book, the component diagram should at a higher level and should illustrate the moving parts of the solution. If the component diagram depicts all classes and interactions, then it will be like a sequence diagram drawn vertically. Can anyone who passed out the exam can shed some light on this?

Thanks,
Kuppusamy.V.,
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 115
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Classes are what designers see components are what users see.
So the answer is yes and no I would say. The yes part is all the classes will all be taken care of by fewer # of components but there may be some components that you will think of while doing the comp diagram - for example there may a component that is common to a number of classes etc. So IMO there is no correlation between the # of classes and # of components
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic