Our system is composed of a lot of different device types. Most of our software components are deployed on more than one device type.
In terms of diagrams, how do I represent the fact that one software component C is deployed both on devices D1 and D2? If I create a deployment diagram with devices D1 and D2, then:
Dragging C into D1 in the diagram will also move C into D1 in the Project Browser, and I want my software components not to be assigned to one device in particular
I am not allowed to drag C into the diagram more than once. How can I represent in the same diagram the fact that C is deployed both on D1 and D2?
You do that by creating instances. You have a package with components that represent a blueprint (like Acre PC X4711 which represents a general type). Now you Ctrl-drag that onto your deployment diagram for a certain location. Choose "As Instance" from the appearing pop up and eventually name the device (e.g. "John's PC"). Additionally you can assign tagged values for the serial number etc. It might be a good idea to create a MDG to assist you with that.
Related
My system is still at the concept stage, but I'm creating a Deployment Diagram to focus discussions about the end result. The system will have some run-time subroutine libraries. At at this stage there is no way to know how many there will be: in fact the number may never stabilize, since it will depend on various other aspects of the system.
A library is an artifact with stereotype "library" in guillemets. Several ways to diagram the unknown number come to mind:
Show one library, with a note attached saying that the number of libraries is unknown
Put an asterisk at the upper right of the library artifact, as with composite structure diagrams
Draw a slanted stack of overlapping artifacts
Don't diagram them individually: just list "library 1, library 2, library 3..."
Use a "manifest" relationship a between an artifact and an asterisked-component.
And there must be lots of other creative possibilities.
Does anyone know if there's a UML-prescribed way to show this unknown number of libraries on a Deployment Diagram, and if so, what it is?
I think you need to separate your logical Deployment Model (abstract) that shows classes of Artefacts, Components, Nodes etc. from your physical Deployment Model(s) (concrete) that show specific instances of those Artefacts, Components and Nodes etc. At the logical level, you could show an abstract Artefact called "Library" that has associations with plural multiplicities to Nodes, Components etc. in your logical design. Then, you could specialise that abstract Artefact, and at the concrete Deployment Model(s) level, create instances of these Library specialisations that are associated with instances of Nodes, Components etc.
Something like:
I have the following problem to resolv. Given the following UML diagram:
I need to complete the diagram doing the following steps:
a) When an employee has a skill, the relationship between the employee and the skill shows years of experience.
b) A worker may have another employee as a manager and a worker who is a manager must manage five or more workers. As a manager, you can determine which workers he manages, but a worker can not determine who is his manager.
c) An activity can have a maximum activity precedent and any number of upcoming activities. Using these roles, we can show how the activities are arranged. Given an activity, you can only determine their own activities (if you have), but not what your previous activity (if any).
d) A worker is not simply associated with a set of skills, but a worker has skills. In particular, every worker should have three or more skills, and any number of employees can have the same ability.
e) A project is not simply a set of activities associated with, but contains a project activities. Specifically, a project must have one or more activities, and activity must belong to exactly one project.
f) Projects and activities are a specific type of job.
My solution is shown in the following picture, but because I am new in this I would like to check if is fine.
Thank you in advance!
Looks good in most parts. Honestly I don't understand the later parts of c)
Your -boss relation is wrong. Your Northern Koreans should not have a private known boss. Instead there's only the other way around and the boss has - let's call them - -slaves. If you put in a private -boss it actually means that the slave can navigate to its private boss which is explicitly not wanted. Only the boss shall know the one he's responsible for. So actually the object itself is the boss object. As a thought, since only the boss should have those 5 employees, it could be an idea to create a separate boss object like this:
Note that this might also have drawbacks since Boss is now actually a different object than Employee, but it seems to fit the requirements.
Point f) seems to call for a generalization. So you would need a generalization towards SpecificJob. This would be an arrow with open triangle, not the one you used:
This actually reads Project and Activity are specific kinds of Job as they both inherit from the latter.
My questions is about bringing a concept to reality through technical availability of EA.
I am looking for a way to connect instances at an object diagram through which I can transfer tagged values. Let me explain the background of the project.
Purpose is to first have Stereotypes for specific roles in the system, such as "Calculation", "Transmission", "Decision", "Qualification", "Abstraction" etc.
Each of these stereotypes have specific tagged values suitable for their purpose.
Then I am creating instances from these stereotypes, eg. "MotorTorque:Calculation" and "LimitedTorque:Abstraction"
Each of these instances have a common tagged value, "criticality", boolean and I want this tagged value to progress from "MotorTorque:Calculation" to "LimitedTorque:Abstraction" through an output port > some sort of flow > input port kind of way.
Questions are:
1- Is this approach technically achievable in EA? If so what would be the correct way to do it?
2- The purpose is to have this "connection" readable in XMI export of the diagram which I will be using as an input for another purpose.
I have created an MDG Technology for my project with stereotypes and tagged values, however, I am having difficulty achieving this "connection", this "flow" of values.
Thank you for your time.
What you are asking for is not directly achievable. However, many ways lead to Rome.
One way would be to <<trace>> connect those objects to a Status class (or what ever you like to name it) and have this carry the "shared TV".
Another way is (by far more complex) to use an add-in. You would anyway need ways to create groups which share the TV. From your current explanation I can't see what that might be. Maybe the instantiating class of those instances? If so, you make a script that propagates a TV setting from ist current to all other linked instances. I'm not sure if the add-in events fire when a TV is changes (I do have some doubts here). If needed I could look that up.
What you propose is partially feasible.
There is a tagged value inheritance chain in EA, in which tagged values are inherited down the generalization chain, and from a classifier to its instances. In the GUI, inherited tagged values are shown separately from the instance's own ones, and in the API they are accessed using the Element.TaggedValuesEx property. Inherited tagged values can also be overridden.
Since the correct way to create a port (or part/property) is to make it an instance of a component, a port will inherit any tagged values from that component. So if your Calculation stereotype applies to component, ports which are instances of Calculation components will inherit the MotorTorque tagged value.
However, there is no way to "flow" tagged values from one port to another. If you want such a function, you'll have to implement it yourself with an Add-In.
Regarding XMI, first you must understand that an XMI export is based on a package, not a diagram. The XMI format itself is extensible, which means that different tool vendors create their own extensions which are typically not publicly documented. Crucially, diagram layouts are part of these non-standardized extensions. In EA's case, the image data is some sort of UU-encoded bitmap which you won't be able to extract any useful information from.
Elements' tagged values are included in an XMI export, but again, the EA extensions are not publicly documented. In other words, you can import EA:s XMI format in another program, but you will need to reverse-engineer the format. Not impossible, but it's probably better to either write your own specialized export function, or export via CSV. Note, however, that CSV export cannot be automated -- there's no call for it in the API.
This is the scenario.
There are three components, A, B and C.
Component A can access methods of component B.
Component B can access methods of component A and component C.
Component C can access methods of component B.
To implement this scenario how many interface description language (IDL) files are needed? How many stubs and skeletons do we require?
I was thinking four IDL files. But can we have multiple stubs and skeletons?
Depending on the size of your services/components (number of methods), I would rather try to split them into logical units rather than based on the number of computers you want to connect.
For example, it can make sense to have two different services implemented by the same server: One for internal purposes and one that is to be published. Or a service is split into two parts, because these two parts do not really belong together logically, although they are for some reason implemented by the same component. All of these services may or may not share the same IDL file.
Last not least, if you still want to minimize the amount of files, keep in mind that declaring, publishing and knowing about a certain service interface does not imply, that a given component must implement the service, must be able to reach the service, wants to use the service, or is allowed to call it.
I am developing a geneaology application, and am currently at the stage of modelling relationships between individuals.
Based on my research, I have noted that most of the mappings of relationships are based on families (father + mother) and so I would like to understand the underlying reasoning behind this before I adopt it blindly.
Since my project is patriarchal, I assume that as soon as a person adds a father, then that creates a new family
Most Genealogy software vendors decided to follow the model that professional genealogists use. The basis is a family group sheet, that includes the father at the top left, the mother at the top right, and the children below.
The database structure then chosen is to have records of two types: Individuals and Families. These are exemplified by the GEDCOM standard which is used to transfer genealogy data between programs.
Then they use what is called a lineage-linked data structure. This structure has two connections:
The Individual will link to the family in which they are a husband or a wife (a FAMS link) and the Family will link back to the two individuals (a HUSB and a WIFE link).
The Individual will link to the families who are their parents, either blood or adopted (a FAMC), and each Family will link back to their children (CHIL links).
Once you develop your program, make sure it will be able to read and write GEDCOM.