This week's book giveaway is in the OO, Patterns, UML and Refactoring forum. We're giving away four copies of Refactoring for Software Design Smells: Managing Technical Debt and have Girish Suryanarayana, Ganesh Samarthyam & Tushar Sharma on-line! See this thread for details.
Hi, I'm doing the assignment and I'd revised my diagrams again and again. My principle is cover all the requirement as well as keep the diagrams on an architecture level.
During the process I found that it's considerable that I follow the instructions in the assignment, that is , my deliverable will be only one class diagram, one component diagram, and several sequence diagram for each use case. Now I feel if I keep the diagram relatively simple it won't be a mess if I only use one class diagram and component diagram. I even consider that one diagram is more readable for the examinator since there is no redudunance.
But I'm not full confident with this approach, should I split my component and class diagram into different part of the system, or keep it as it was? I'm comfortable with only one digram since I well organised all symbols.
I doubt you'll add more value by splitting up without really feeling the urge to do so. So If you are confident about your design and feel comfortable with your layouts, leave them as they are! (Well, and if not, let it mature and revise it again )
Joined: Jul 06, 2007
I think it's better to leave it as it was and revise it later. Because right now I'm a little bit satisfied with my design and very possible that I can't see the problem.
IMHO, architecture is a job to provide a most suitable and reasonable solution which is one of the various solutions, while some of them are all acceptable.
If it helps, I don't think the number of diagrams has too much effect (unless you provide a huge number of it!) I followed the assignment indications (1 class diagram, 1 component diagram, and 1 for each use case) and I passed, other people didn't followed it, and passed too My class diagram was concise enough so I didn't felt more diagrams were required. My component diagram was a little cluttered but I liked the "big map view" it provided. (I lost 6 points in the component and class each, so maybe you shouldn't follow my advice ) The sequence diagrams, some where short, so there was no point on splitting, and one was kind of big, but again, I felt that by splitting it, some context would be lost. (and I got all the points for sequence diagrams ) Bottom line: do whatever YOU think is the best way and be ready to explain why. [ August 23, 2007: Message edited by: Gabriel Claramunt ]