aspose file tools*
The moose likes OO, Patterns, UML and Refactoring and the fly likes java interfaces in a UML design doc Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login


Win a copy of Soft Skills this week in the Jobs Discussion forum!
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Engineering » OO, Patterns, UML and Refactoring
Bookmark "java interfaces in a UML design doc" Watch "java interfaces in a UML design doc" New topic
Author

java interfaces in a UML design doc

Barry Brashear
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 05, 2001
Posts: 303
Does anyone know how to denote a java interface in a UML design document?
Stan James
(instanceof Sidekick)
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 8791
Excellent question. UML has a "lollypop" decoration for interface - a short line with an open circle. Anybody know if Java practitioners interpret this literally as a Java interface? I criticized somebody's model recently because I didn't read it that way. Still don't know if he did.


A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of the idea. John Ciardi
Ilja Preuss
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jul 11, 2001
Posts: 14112
The "lollipop" is one way to depict an interface - another is to simply use an <<interface>> stereotype on a class.

Stan, how did you interprete the "lollipop"?


The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny - it is the light that guides your way. - Heraclitus
Stan James
(instanceof Sidekick)
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jan 29, 2003
Posts: 8791
I kinda ignored it . Back in the days we were getting Rational mentoring we were doing PowerBuilder. There was no "interface" in the language. We used lollypops to indicate something about a published public API that we expected others to use. We were probably mis-using it to express some scoping concept like public and REALLY public.

As for that recent incident, I was looking for <<interface>> on the diagram and not finding it. Somehow the lollypop didn't register as perhaps the same thing. What I was really looking for was DIP but that wasn't what the author was talking about, so there was pretty major disconnect on my part all along. Sigh, face-to-face wins over diagrams any day.
Kyle Brown
author
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 3892
    
    5
Within Rational, we commonly use either the lollipop or the <<interface>> sterotype for Java interfaces. It's pretty much the standard.

Kyle


Kyle Brown, Author of Persistence in the Enterprise and Enterprise Java Programming with IBM Websphere, 2nd Edition
See my homepage at http://www.kyle-brown.com/ for other WebSphere information.
Ilja Preuss
author
Sheriff

Joined: Jul 11, 2001
Posts: 14112
Originally posted by Stan James:
We used lollypops to indicate something about a published public API that we expected others to use. We were probably mis-using it to express some scoping concept like public and REALLY public.


Ah, yes - the old public vs. published problem: http://www.martinfowler.com/ieeeSoftware/published.pdf <sigh>

IIRC, that's the way the lollipop is used in package diagrams - to depict the publi*shed* parts of a package.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: java interfaces in a UML design doc