I have been a silent participant in this forum. I passed part II/III with 78%, and I had passed part I with 85% two months ago.
The discussions in this forum were very helpful. Thanks to every one.
In general, I think there are some weaknesses about the grade mechanism of part II/II of the certification. Sun gives a grade about Component, Class and Sequence diagrams, but there is no explicit grade about architectural matters (scalability, performance,...) and how well the requirements are met.
To solve the assignment, I followed all of the advices given through the discussions in this forum, the BluePrints guidelines, the best practices and considerations in Core J2EE design patterns, but I don't (and possible will not) know where I was wrong. Also, I made a 12 page architecture document and documented my diagrams (maybe I did more than needed).
I got 42 in class diagrams, 27 in component diagrams, and 9 in sequence diagrams. I don't know if the person at Sun did't like the way I partitioned the component diagram in two to make it more understandable; or maybe I put many components.
Ok, I am certified now and I am happy for this achievement. Thanks again,
Yes, I agree with you, I too felt like I have satisfied all requirements and made sure that diagrams pertain to UML notation. I have 5+ years of J2EE experience and I architect and design a lot as part of my work. I was expecting 95+%, but all I got was 88%. Really, I don't know their expectations to make the architecture perfect.
But, pass is a pass. now, you are a certified J2EE Architect. That is enough to feel proud!
I think so too, additionaly I cleared the certification with exactly the same score part 1 with 85% and 2&3 with 78%, in my case the victim was class diagram, with only 27. So, I couldn't understand what may be wrong if components and sequence diagramas are good (39 and 12 respectively). This situation is very suspect.
But, you have passed...
Joined: May 02, 2005
Karen, I had 19 classes. The diagram class was technology independent.
I did two component diagrams, one generic and another use-cases specific; the first one had 10 components and the second one 30 components (I preferred to give detailed diagrams). Also, the components were grouped by logical tiers.