Besides using EA for developing and maintaining various model definitions - is it possible to use it as a repository of instance data?
Let's say that I have defined an class, "Activity". Can I use EA as a repo for the instances of this class?
In my particular use case I'm trying to document various aspects of our helpdesk. In addition to documenting the components pertaining to our support process, I would also like to store the actual implementation information pertaining to these components.
An example:
In a sense, I would like to use EA as a central database of configuration data (the collection of defined activities) and at the same time be able to trace each configuration data item to the formal class definition. Having the possibility to trace these relationships would make it easy for us to know what defined activities nned to be updated if we change the class model, and vice versa.
How can I implement this in EA?
Does this make sense, or am I completely off when it comes to what EA can be used for?
Yes you could do that by creating instances of your classes and setting the run-state.
Create an instance by (Ctrl+) dragging your class onto a class diagram and choosing Instance(Object) for Drop As:
Then use the context menu option Features | Set Run State (Ctrl + Shift + R) to set the run states.
Whether or not this is a good idea I'll leave in the middle.
Related
I have an ERD Diagram of an E-commerce with the following entities Product , Tag , ProductTag,Category and other entities of course.
I tried to convert it into class diagram as follows:
1- removed the id
2- converted the foreign key into object of the type i'm refering to(product_id converted into => product: Product)
my question is , is this good approach to follow on all my entities? does it like achieve the SOLID principle? I have a presentation in 2 days and I want to be very sure of what I have made , any comment or modification would be really enough .I also chose these tables because they represent one to many and many to many. thanks in advance.
Basically your approach is correct. It's just a couple of UML specifications you got wrong.
The label in the middle of the connectors is just the name of the connector. Unless you do some OCL wizardry this name is meaningless. There is a way to adorn it with a black triangle to show the reading direction. This sometimes helps business people to understand how classes are related to each other (see Fig. 11.27 on p. 202 of UML 2.5). But usually you would not use it.
The shared aggregation has no semantics (p. 110 of UML: Indicates that the Property has shared aggregation semantics. Precise semantics of shared aggregation varies by application area and modeler.). So leave the open diamond away. Composite (filled diamond) can be used to show responsibility (when I'm killed I will kill my composites first). Usually it adds too little to be really useful, it only heats up the futile composition-discussion.
The navigation-direction is incorrect. The AC in the middle sees both connected classes so it's shown without any arrow. If you have an additional (directed) association you place it as lone (extra) connector. In that case put role names towards any end. That makes navigation clearer than just a simple arrow. I for myself use arrows only on rough sketches on the drawing board.
P.S. Just noticing that you have operations in your classes that have the same name as the class and take one paramter being also the class. I would guess you intend to show a constructor here. In that case you would make it Classname():Classname and provide only the paramaters that are needed for the constructor. Else these opreations don't seem to make much sense. Similarly the CRUD operations seem to work on a list of 'itself' which is also probably not desired. You would have a collection class which handles the base class where these operation make sense. So to summarize: you would only add getter/setter operations for the (private) properties matching the columns from your table.
P.P.S.: As per Christophe's comment it's a good idea to adorn the class instantiation operation with a <<create>> stereotype which highlights its purpose. See p. 196 of UML 2.5:
This stereotype is part of the standard (see p. 677) and the table on p. 678 states:
Specifies that the designated feature creates an instance of the classifier to which the feature is attached.
On the modeling part of your question, there’s already a perfect answer. For the records, I’d nevertheless like to add a complementary answer on the SOLID part:
Single responsibility: your classes have more than one reason to change, because you may want to change Product for what it is (e.g. add more product-related attributes), but you may also want to change the class to add new getByXxx() operations to find products in the database based on other criteria, independently of what a product really is. SO it's not complying.
Open-closed principle: we cannot tell
Liskov substitution principle: in absence of inheritance, this is not relevant. Moreover, you couldn't tell without having precondition, postcondition and invariant constraints.
Interface segregation principe: is probably not compliant, because you impose an implicit interface that all inheriting class would have to provide, even if they don't need it (e.g. products not stored in a database). A first step in the right direction, would be to use an interface for the common database operations.
Dependency inversion: we cannot tell but probably it isn't , because update(), delete(),... probably depends on some database, so that you can't switch it to another database. With DIP, you'd inject the database in the class that use it, so that you could at any moment inject another database that offers the same interface.
You didn't ask, but your design seems to correspond to active records. If you want to go for a cleaner, more SOLID design, you should prefer factor out the database related code to either repositories or table data gateways.
We need to create a booking system that allows rape victims to book sessions with a counsellor (who is a volunteer therefore is not on duty 24/7) online. The organisation used to do the booking process over the phone, writing down important information.
This is the package diagram I created for a project. I am not sure: am I allowed to just use the packages as entities for the class diagram?
A package is a tool to structure models by grouping somehow related pieces into namespaces.
It is not unusual to recognize a decomposition that coincides somehow with larger components (e.g. Client, Application and Data). But it is not correct to use packages as a substitute for a class. It may even look confusing.
It is not a problem to keep enclosing or nested packages such as Booking system in a class diagram. But you should use a proper class box for classes. You would then be able to show not only the properties but also the operations in a different compartment. Last but not least, you could be more precise in the relationships between classes, considering that packages are only related via dependencies and some special package operations, whereas classes can be related also with associations, inheritance, etc..
For example, your diagram tells only that Booking is dependent on Client. And this means the content of one package needs to know about the other packages. But in reality Client and Booking should be associated i.e. an instance of Client would be related for a longer time to some specific instances of Booking. In this case, you'd expect that you could easily navigate from the one to the other. Associations also allow to specify multiplicity, e.g. that one client could have 1 or more bookings, but each booking would be for only one client.
Other remarks, unrelated to the question:
Your comment box suggests that you try to explain the purpose of the system, perhaps for some stakeholders. You may therefore consider using a use-case diagram to show the big picture with the different actors and the goals they want to achieve with the system.
In a class box, you could add an «Entity» stereotype above the name of the class. Entities are domain classes that matter to the users.
Data storage system seems not to fit in the diagram: it's not really an entity. Perhaps it's a class, a component or a package, but not really an entity.
I have three components, A, B and C, and I associate A to B and B to C. If I create a new diagram and drop these three components onto the diagram, EA automatically shows the relationships between the components.
If I only drop A and C on a new diagram, is there a way to get EA to show that A is associated to C without creating an explicit association between A and C?
Whilst this is not a default behavior in EA, and some EA practitioners even argue against such a request.
I've seen one of my client in a similar situation, where there was a need to traverse from a business process to use cases without adding the requirements on to the picture (Their usual hierarchy business process -> Requirements -> UCs)
We ended up automating trace connectors creation in this particular instance. Where everytime a requirement is linked to a usecase, and if the same requirement is linked to a business process, a trace relationship is created between UC & BP.
NB - This could end up in really messy relationships, if you don't constraint it for specific purpose
The Associations A->B and B->C imply nothing about any potential relationship between A and C. For example, if the Association between B->C defines that B has a private attribute of type C, then A may not even know that C exists. Creating an explicit relationship is the way forward.
To what the other posters have said, I'll add that implicit relationships are simply not part of UML. So I don't see EA supporting it any time soon. If you really need it, Nizam Mohamed's automation suggestion will work but you can't get EA to do it out of the box.
If it's enough to see these implicit relationships on demand, you can use EA's Traceability window (under the View menu). This lets you follow relationships between elements in a tree view, so you can navigate from A to B to C.
In a project I work on there is a C# library containing business objects which are related to the backing database tables/stored procedures.
We imported the code into EA model (where we already have database model) and now I'd like to show dependency between a class and a table (or stored procedure output).
Since these are loosely coupled (i.e. only a portion of properties are shared between them) I'd like to have a relation between a class A and table B and in the properties of this relation to have the mapping (A.a <-> B.a , ...).
Is this possible and how?
You can draw connectors between two elements and then link one or both ends to an element feature (an attribute or an operation). Draw the connector, then right-click near the end and select Link to Element Feature.
You can draw any number of connectors between two elements, and link any number of them to any features at either or both ends.
You should note that this is an EA feature which is not in the UML standard. As such, it is also a little trickier to automate (the feature link is not documented in the API), but I've done it before for a client so it can be done. However, from your question I assume it's the manual case you're interested in.
I would like to experimentally apply an aspect of encapsulation that I read about once, where an entity object includes domains for its attributes, e.g. for its CostCentre property, it contains the list of valid cost centres. This way, when I open an edit form for an Extension, I only need pass the form one Extension object, where I normally access a CostCentre object when initialising the form.
This also applies where I have a list of Extensions bound to a grid (telerik RadGrid), and I handle an edit command on the grid. I want to create an edit form and pass it an Extension object, where now I pass the edit form an ExtensionID and create my object in the form.
What I'm actually asking here is for pointers to guidance on doing this this way, or the 'proper' way of achieving something similar to what I have described here.
It would depend on your data source. If you are retrieving the list of Cost Centers from a database, that would be one approach. If it's a short list of predetermined values (like Yes/No/Maybe So) then property attributes might do the trick. If it needs to be more configurable per-environment, then IoC or the Provider pattern would be the best choice.
I think your problem is similar to a custom ad-hoc search page we did on a previous project. We decorated our entity classes and properties with attributes that contained some predetermined 'pointers' to the lookup value methods, and their relationships. Then we created a single custom UI control (like your edit page described in your post) which used these attributes to generate the drop down and auto-completion text box lists by dynamically generating a LINQ expression, then executing it at run-time based on whatever the user was doing.
This was accomplished with basically three moving parts: A) the attributes on the data access objects B) the 'attribute facade' methods at the middle-tier compiling and generation dynamic LINQ expressions and C) the custom UI control that called our middle-tier service methods.
Sometimes plans like these backfire, but in our case it worked great. Decorating our objects with attributes, then creating a single path of logic gave us just enough power to do what we needed to do while minimizing the amount of code required, and completely eliminated any boilerplate. However, this approach was not very configurable. By compiling these attributes into the code, we tightly coupled our application to the datasource. On this particular project it wasn't a big deal because it was a clients internal system and it fit the project timeline. However, on a "real product" implementing the logic with the Provider pattern or using something like the Castle Projects IoC would have allowed us the same power with a great deal more configurability. The downside of this is there is more to manage, and more that can go wrong with deployments, etc.