Connectors in UML2.0 compliant component diagram

[Mike Degteariov]

Hello Ranchers,

I am trying to understand how to create a UML2.0 compliant component diagram, and I found that different sources suggest different ways of how to show component’s internal structure - particularly, what kind of lines to use for delegating and assembling connectors.

I checked 4 different sources:

(1)“UML Distilled” book by Martin Fowler (sorry, no link)
(2)Section about component diagram on “Agile Modeling” web site, by Scott Amber - http://www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/componentDiagram.htm
(3)Section about component diagram on IBM developer works web site - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/dec04/bell/index.html
(4)Section about component diagram on uml-diagrams.org - http://www.uml-diagrams.org/component-diagrams.html

I found that these four resources draw connectors in different way:

For “delegating” connector:
(1)dashed line, open arrow
(2)solid line, open arrow, <<delegate>> stereotype
(3)solid line, open arrow, <<delegate>> stereotype
(4)solid line, no arrow

For “assembly” connector:
(1)solid line, no arrows, no annotation
(2)dashed line, open arrow
(3)ball and socket
(4)ball and socket

How come that four reputable sources explain standard diagram in such different ways ?
Does anyone know if these connectors are standardized at all ? What does the standard say about it ?

[Junilu Lacar]

I wouldn't agonize too much about differences and "standards" -- it's not worth it, IMO. If you have any concerns that the notation you use in your diagrams will be misunderstood, why not just include a legend and maybe a brief Help section to explain what you mean when you use each different type of connector. See my thoughts about UML and similar notations in this thread