Level of details of Class diagram

[Marwan Adel]

I am wondering about the level of details needed for class diagram in part II , If I have created one unique class diagram containing all attributes and methods this will overkill the diagram

I am thinking of creating package diagram and then abstract class diagram with almost no details (No attributes or methods ) and then drive down to each logical or physical group to complete it's whole details

Is this accepted in the assignment or not ?

[Mike Degteariov]

There has been a discussion not long ago about whether to partition the class diagram :
https://coderanch.com/t/644914/java-Architect-SCEA/certification/Partitioning-Class-Diagram
You may or may not partition your class diagram, there is no single right or wrong approach.
I eventually did not partition mine, but I know that some people did, and they have passed.

[L Foster]

Hey, Marwan,
Now you have passed, with a nice score. You could answer this question yourself.

BTW, I passed the assignment myself. I doubt there is an absolute answer on this. One thing I did, was to actually avoid using a framework, like JSF, because I was not comfortable modeling it. In real life, I would never build a website of any size without a framework, unless forced to do so to meet some NFR. That being said, on the class diagram, I put all my JSPs on, and labeled them with prototype notation (<<JSP>>). I also did my best to model all parts of any AJAX communication. I think my UML tool (Astah) will add things to a Class Diagram, that are used in Sequence Diagrams, to classes automatically (I could be mistaken). That meant a lot of method signatures fattening up my class 'boxes'. I took no effort to hide them on the class diagram, which might have made my model a bit cluttered. I further made sure certain things mentioned in my assignment document were darn-sure mentioned in the class diagram. That added some member declarations. JPA entities were also on the class diagram, and were also prototype-notation-marked (<<JPA>>). Now, I gather 'excessive clutter' is not considered a good thing. Just think about balance, there.

I also modelled all JSPs on the component diagram. I modeled JPA entities, DAOs (for non-JPA), MDBs, EJBs, and even some things implied to be part of the EJB container.

My sequence diagrams ran from the client to EntityManager (JPA concept), and did not include explicit talk to the database. So, at that point, I did do detail limiting.

I took the approach that the included document was to be a catch-all for anything. So I made it pretty extensive.

I did not receive a perfect score. It was pretty good, I thought (146/160). For all I know, all the points were taken for clutter (doubtful, IMHO). I thought it was worth the risk. I sort of looked at the diagrams at one point and thought, "You know, if I get to the point that folks are as eye-rollingly irritated at this, as I was with the EJB standards document (repeat everything--never make anyone look at the rest of the document), then I should trim down some detail." I did trim some detail at that point.

BTW, I do understand that level of repeated drill-down is appropriate for a standards document. ;-)