aspose file tools*
The moose likes Architect Certification (SCEA/OCMJEA) and the fly likes Representing VOs Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Certification » Architect Certification (SCEA/OCMJEA)
Bookmark "Representing VOs" Watch "Representing VOs" New topic
Author

Representing VOs

George Gastaldi
Greenhorn

Joined: Feb 13, 2007
Posts: 4
How do I represent the VOs in my project ? I guess the class Diagram should be technology-agnostic, and should contain only the business model, not implementation details.

So, should I put them in the Component Diagram ? But then I guess this is an implementation detail. Or not ?

Any suggestions ?
Joseph A Alexander
Greenhorn

Joined: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 23
VOs need not be a part of Component Diagram. You need to provide those in Class Diagram.
[ February 22, 2007: Message edited by: Joseph Alexander ]

Regards,<br />Joe, SCEA
Francis Sommers
Greenhorn

Joined: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 13
I'm just completing my assignment and currently have the Value objects on my component diagram. I'm of the mindset that the class diagram should include only the businesss objects. I had tossed the idea of including Value objects, Business Delegates, Service locators etc. on my class diagram but decided to include them only in the component diagram because they are needed to realize the business classes. I'd be interested in what others have to say about this.
Nitin Singh
Greenhorn

Joined: Oct 14, 2004
Posts: 24
In my opinion Component diagram should not contain VOs, rather it should contain higher level Components which provide services or has some behaviour. VOs could go in the Class diagrams.
George Gastaldi
Greenhorn

Joined: Feb 13, 2007
Posts: 4
Originally posted by Francis Sommers:
I'm just completing my assignment and currently have the Value objects on my component diagram. I'm of the mindset that the class diagram should include only the businesss objects. I had tossed the idea of including Value objects, Business Delegates, Service locators etc. on my class diagram but decided to include them only in the component diagram because they are needed to realize the business classes. I'd be interested in what others have to say about this.


Francis, I think of that too.
Could anyone that already got SCEA could please answer to this post ?

Thanks.
Joseph A Alexander
Greenhorn

Joined: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 23
Component Diagrams are used show the interfaces/services exposed by "programs" (like one or more POJOs packed together, EJBs, Webservices etc) and how they interact with each other.

For example, if you have an EJB for Order Processing, then it will be a component in your component diagram. Granular level details like attributes, methods, arguments of this service wont be exposed/provided in the component diagrams.

Value Objects are very granular structures used to encapsulate the business data. These are not complex enough to be qualified to be put in Component Diagrams.

Class diagrams should be granular and detailed, which should contain each and every class we use in the application and its relationship with other classes.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Joseph, SCEA
[ February 23, 2007: Message edited by: Joseph Alexander ]
Chintan Rajyaguru
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 341
class diagram should include only the businesss objects.


George and Francis, why do you think that?

C


ChintanRajyaguru.com
SOADevelopment.com - Coming soon!
Francis Sommers
Greenhorn

Joined: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 13
I do agree that the component diagrams should show how the application is assembled and that Transfer objects are a bit fine grained for a component diagram but I am not completely sure they belong in a top level class diagram either. I'm going to put my transfer objects on my class diagram now. Joseph or Nitin what do you think about Business Delegate and Service Locator objects. Should these go on the class diagram also or should they be on the component diagram ?
Nitin Singh
Greenhorn

Joined: Oct 14, 2004
Posts: 24
Putting more classes in class diagrams is always good but its a trade off between what is required most vs nice to have.
I would include Business Delegates and Service lcoators in Component diagram coz they are higher level and close to components.
In class diagrams we should try to elaborate more on business/domain classes and serivce classes like EJBs and Utility classes with their relationships (which is the most important). I would not put standard classes like Business Delegates and Service locators which are self explanatory.
[ February 24, 2007: Message edited by: Nitin Singh ]
Joseph A Alexander
Greenhorn

Joined: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 23
I would suggest to put the Business Delegate and Service Locators in the Component diagrams.

If your Component diagram is messy (with so many components), then you can avoid putting the BD & SL and explain the approach of calling the services from client tier separately.
[ February 26, 2007: Message edited by: Joseph Alexander ]
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: Representing VOs