• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Part 2 Component Diagram

 
Luay Abdulraheem
Ranch Hand
Posts: 65
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Dear All,

While reading more about Component Diagrams, nothing looks like the one in Cade's book.

Question: should my Component Diagram look like Cade's one "the different one" , or like all the others ?

Please give a clear answer
 
Jeanne Boyarsky
author & internet detective
Marshal
Posts: 35279
384
Eclipse IDE Java VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Are you referring to the UML 1 vs UML 2 style distinction or something else?

Also, take a look at the CadeSheilSceaFaq for other differences with the book models.
 
Luay Abdulraheem
Ranch Hand
Posts: 65
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I feel that Cade uses UML 2 by noticing the new Component shape style where components are modeled as simple rectangles.(by the way this is UML 2 style, right?)
My Doubts were about two things:
1) Cade uses <<uses>> stereotype, where others use Provided/Required Interfaces ?
2) Cade uses Nodes for external servers, where others show them as Components with <<external>> stereotype?

From someone who passed the exam, is Cade's style OK ?
I am following his style for now but I need someone to assure me that this is right
Thank you ALL !
 
Jeanne Boyarsky
author & internet detective
Marshal
Posts: 35279
384
Eclipse IDE Java VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think Cade overuses "uses." I followed a modified version of his style (because my tool didn't support it), but I think his style is ok.
 
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic