The BDM - Manufacturer & Cigars

[Srinivasan Rengan]

I was looking into the BDM and the first strike of uncomfortness which struck me was in regard to the manufacturer being attached to many-to-many relationship with Cigars. This can happen only when the Standard cigars, Petite cigars etc become some kind of cigar categories.

I was reading one of the other post in this site and I am in no way surprised that some one else has found a similar problem.

It is issue like this which makes us think whether we can modify the BDM

S.

[Henry Naf.]

I am struggling with the same idea: on one hand a product can be manufactured by multiple parties (tobacco, filters, etc), on the other hand, I'd think only one manufacturer assembles the product and retails/ wholesales it. So, I am not sure why the system is interested in the fact that multiple parties can manufacture it? Kind-of stuck on this point as well.

Henry

[deepak adlakha]

So there only two options here :-

Option 1) Change BDM
Option 2) Don't change anything in BDM and design your solution based on input BDM.

If you search in previous messages, few people suggested option 1 and few people suggested option 2.

Although i worked on different assignment, but i found some issue in the BDM provided, so i made few assumptions and clearly mentioned those in the solution notes and went with option 1. But please remember, my change to BDM was minor and 95 % was BDM same as it was provided.

[Srinivasan Rengan]

Ok. Assuming that Big Smokes sells only 3 cigars and assuming that the BDM is perfectly correct...Can we produce another class diagram in the exam (probably in the assumptions section) and potray the modified class diagram per our assumption?

I dont know how people take it, but what ever is, GOD PLEASE DONT TAKE MY MARKS

[deepak adlakha]

IMHO, I will not suggest two class diagrams, whichever option you select 1 or 2. Please provide only one class diagram.

Dont make checking confusing for the examiner.

[Srinivasan Rengan]

I was reading another post and I found that too good. The post which was suggesting about treating the cigars as categories. In that case we can actually consider the existing entities to be subclasses to the category class (simple IS-A relationship)

But the only question which I have here is, why not the question be straight forward? It could be complex, but that need not make it more confusing

[wolfgang unger]

I have the same questions right now... even this an older thread.
I am tending to extend the BDM...
I would subclass the three different types of cigars from a (abstract)cigar and let this hold the relationship to manufactures.
also a category entity for the cigar...?
Further on I would put a OrderDetail or LineItem between the cigars and the order.
I hope this won't go to far... but the domain model like it is, looks to me like a business DOM, not a technical DOM.
From my experience, I always had to alter business DOM's (because business analysts don't know about lineItems and inheritence)...to better serve the realisation
as long as the business DOM is not changed in it's intention or meaning

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

wolfgang unger wrote:I always had to alter BDMs (because business analysts don't know/care about lineItems and inheritence)...to better serve the realisation
as long as the BDM is not changed in it's intention or meaning

I agree. I took the advice to mean one should minimize changes. There are many things in the exam that contradict what you wuld do in real life. Hence I learned I couldn't trust my instincts completely.

[wolfgang unger]

I am not quit sure on your answer, jeanne.
so, you would also extend the BDM(inheritence) in the assignment?
or only in real life? ;-)

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

wolfgang unger wrote:I am not quit sure on your answer, jeanne.
so, you would also extend the BDM(inheritence) in the assignment?
or only in real life? ;-)

I would extend it a bit in the assignment and significantly more in real life.