• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Sequence diagrams: methods calls vs. plain english

 
Lars Behnke
Ranch Hand
Posts: 76
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi all,

I have just finished my sequence diagrams and feel that thinks got too complicated.

In the course of simplifying the diagrams I decided to use plain old english phrases (instead of method calls) in order to document messages.

However, I have some doubts, whether this is still compliant with UML 2.0. All documentation I found uses method calls.

What's your decision/opinion on this topic? Comments are highly welcome.
 
Sreenivasa Majji
Ranch Hand
Posts: 224
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think you need to use methods, however you can use 'note' to describe the methods.
 
Lars Behnke
Ranch Hand
Posts: 76
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Sreenivasa,

After looking up the UML 2.0 spec I tend to agree with you.
The spec states:


A Message is a NamedElement that defines one specific kind of communication in an Interaction. A communication can
be, for example, raising a signal, invoking an Operation, creating or destroying an Instance.
[...]
A Message reflects either an Operation call and start of execution - or a sending and reception of a Signal.

[Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0, formal/05-07-04]

Furthermore the notation of signals and operation calls are specified in great detail. IMO there is no room for a plain english approach.
 
It is sorta covered in the JavaRanch Style Guide.
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic