Question on Component Diagram - Part 2

[Venkat Kantamani]

Hi All,

I never drew a component diagram before, But for the assignment I need to do one. When I compared the diagrams on the internet with the one provided in the chapter 9 of Mark Cade and Humphrey Sheil, there is a vast difference in them(like no interfaces, no ports etc).

But I liked the Mark Cade and Humphrey Sheil as it's very simple and elegant compared to the other ones. So I have decided to follow it. But the only problem is, for my actual assignment, the diagram looks close to the Mark Cade's example diagram and it's even simpler than that(I don't have the Inventory & Pricing logic functionality as similar functionality in my assignment is external to my system and I'm accessing it as web service. So I don't have the component in the business layer, But I showed a component in the integration layer which accesses the web service). So this change will make the diagram look very simple(11 components and 3 external systems = 14 boxes) and I'm worried it may not be good enough for 40 marks!!

I understand that if the problem requires only his much, then it should give me complete points. But it's an exam and often making things too simple is not a very good idea. Do you guys think I need to elaborate more?(Like instead of showing related SLSB and ENTITIES as one components, split them and show interactions between them?)

If you guys can provide some good links to sample components diagrams(like the one in Mark Cade's book), it would be helpful to me.(I found many, But they are not like the one in Mark Cade's book)

Appreciate your inputs.

Regards,
Venkat

[Venkat Kantamani]

Guys, anybody got some inputs on this?

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Venkat,
Keep in mind everyone here is volunteering their time and it is good to allow up 24 hours for people to see it. Three hours isn't long enough to be worried you aren't getting an answer. For more see PatienceIsAVirtue.

Now, on to your question: I had 16 boxes in my component diagram. That sounds similar in complexity to yours. I did postulate about hardware since Cade/Sheil seem to think it is important to include.

[Venkat Kantamani]

Jeanne,

Sorry about the hurry, I will keep the time frame in mind for future requests.
Coming to your answer, did you mean discussion of Hardware in the component diagram? Don't you think it should part of "Deployment Diagram"? I have elaborated on the Hardware in the deployment diagram section, But not in the component diagram.

-Venkat

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Yes, I meant the deployment diagram. I had 16 boxes on component and 7 on deployment.