Devashish Bansal

I guess I am the longest waiting person here!

I appeared for part 3 on 25 Aug and i am still waiting for the results since 20 weeks!

I see most of the people who appeared even in Sept. got their results already, i thought it should be first come first serve, i guess not!
Is there anyone who appeared before 25th Aug and still waiting?

+1

Waiting since 15 weeks!
Dates of exams given:

Part 1: 6 June
Part 2: 23 Aug (Retire Early)
Part 3: 25 Aug

I am also using asynch WS in the same fashion. This may help:

http://biemond.blogspot.com/2011/02/building-asynchronous-web-service-with.html

Did anybody failed part 2 in recent months?
It is understandable that a person would not have posted his failed attempt out of shame/depression, but i would highly appreciate if someone can post their failed scores and their analysis of possible reasons of failure and if they corrected them and passed. This will be of great help for all those who are about to submit assignment and feeling low on confidence (fear of failing and not able to re-submit before oct. 1).

Anybody did like Cade's component diagram and passed exam?

In Cade's Component diagram, for connecting various components an arrow with <<uses>> is used everywhere whereas in real world diagrams as far as i know, we always use ports defined on each component and connect these ports by defining "provided interface" and "required interface" on 2 connecting components.

Can anybody please validate if Cade's component diagram is fully UML compliant and we can follow the same practice or this is again a matter of discussion (if it is then please add this to CadeSheilSceaFaq)

Atleast we can "label" our posts so whenever someone starts a new topic he can mark the subject like "[part 2] queries reg. class diagram", i think this would make it lot easier to find relevant topics, we can further label to be more specific like "[part 2-diagrams]" or "[part 2-vouchers]" or "[part 2-J2EE]".

And to make this more visible, we can have a sticky topic with subject like "IMP: Label your topics"

Arnold Reuser wrote:Communication based on service activators, implemented as message listeners, should indeed be specified as part of the integration tier.
Otherwise your component will be part of the business tier.

So that clarifies my side question....thanks.

Since i developed all my diagrams in this tool, it wouldn't look good if i use another tool for component diagram so i think that cannot be a solution....thanks anyway.
Can anybody help me out clarifying if my use of arrows with <<uses>> is OK or can be a "single point of failure" for my component diagram.

I am using IBM Rational Software Architect tool for my assignment, although its a great tool I am unable to use connectors and ports in component diagram (seems extremely difficult), instead i am using simple arrows with <<use>> between every component, giving interface name as text on arrows, my question is does it make my component diagram non-UML compliant or will it cost me good amount of marks?

One supporting relief is that Cade's component diagram also have arrows with <<uses>> but as usual all Cade's diagrams are debatable.
Please give your views on this.

As a side question, I am using simple java class to talk to JMS queue (synchronous messaging is required) and this class is directly used by SLSBs, do i need to show this class in Integration tier or Business tier?

AHA...So they improved this in new version as I am using 7.0 and there is no such option in menu. Will download 8.0.3 now and get some relief, i don't understand how RSA (earlier versions) was such a famous tool if the sequence diagram shows "mandatory" numbers which make it look highly unprofessional.

Many Thanks for the info.

For the same reason, I moved on to another tool called Omondo, its evaluation version doesn't contain any watermark and diagrams have better look and feel.

Actually, in RSA you can change visibility icons to +,-,#. In class diagram, select the box you want to change, go to menu Diagram->Filters->Stereotype and visibility style| and select Visibility style:Text.

But i found a more stubborn issue in RSA, in sequence diagrams it always shows text on every msg as 1.1.1 <text> and i cannot find how to hide this sequence number, and this is forcing me to move to other UML tools having wasted lot of time creating class diagram in RSA , if anyone happens to know solution to this, please do reply.

-Dev

I am also using IBM RSA and i know a friend who used this tool with icons in his assignment and passed, so i think there is no issue in using this tool, RSA (earlier Rational Rose) being the most famous UML tool since inception, also RSA is UML 2.1 compliant.

This might help:

http://www.ajaxonomy.com/2008/xml/web-services-part-1-soap-vs-rest

esp. see pros/cons part.

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Your design should show the last point you control that calls the external system. For example a facade or adapter or...

I wound up listing a whole bunch of assumptions about the external system in my assumptions section.

I have the same dilemma as Senthil, further questions from my side on this:

Communication with this external system has to be Synchronous in some cases and asynchronous in other cases, Since this is an external system without any mention we can't assume its a Java system (and provides a JMS queue for asynch communication), so we have to go with asynch WS calls.

Now to support asynch WS i need to add 2-3 components in all diagrams and make some domain changes, Do you think its better to show these detailed changes for this external system or we can just go with assumptions list mentioning all these (given that its very imp. external system i.e. stock exchange for a trading system, without this asynch WS, requirements are not fully achieved).