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.
If the integration tier within the component diagram illustrates how we interface with external systems I am wondering what level of detail we should show in this tier.
In Cade's example he keeps it pretty abstract - Pricing DAO, Inventory DAO, LDAP DAO etc. If you need to interface with an external system called X via JMS, should you just put X DAO in the integration tier or should you reference JMS in the integration layer?
You can put the level of detail that you want in the component diagram, it is totally up to you and there is no real wrong or right level of detail.
Just a level a detail which is appropriate to pass your ideas across (to examiner in that case).
I used the Cade's way in my assignemnt with only high level components (X DAO ) in the integration layer>.
I suited the design of my solution.
I then described in more detail these integration components in the class diagram.
SCJP 5 , SCWCD 5, SCEA 5
Joined: Mar 02, 2009
Thanks for the responses folks.
So if the SuD receives or sends data to/from an external system, e.g. inventory information via a web service call to an inventory system, in the integration tier I could represent this by Inventory DAO or Inventory Web Service. If I mention Web Service(rather than DAO) should it read Inventory Web Service Client or Inventory Web Service.
Similarily, if I interact with an external system(SYSTEM_A) via messaging, I could represent this as SYSTEM_A DAO or SYSTEM_A JMS Client(or SYSTEM_A JMS)