I have two private data structures and five functions in my class, How can I represent the relation between the functions and the data structures in class. Eg: Two of those functions uses the First data structure and three other functions uses the second data structure.
Also How can I represent relation between the functions in the class. eg : among the 5 functions two are public and three are private, one public function in the class calls the other three private functions.
If this is not relevant in class diagram then what is the best solution to represent this in UML.
the interaction of functions and fields is not displayed in a Class Diagram.
Therefore you should use a sequence diagramm. But normaly you do not show the interaction of fields within an Object. You display the interaction on the level of function calls between Objects.
Two things. First, there's a good reason UML doesn't provide notation for depicting relationships & structure within a class. Classes are supposed to be cohesive abstractions of data and function. So if you have any significant structure within a class, you should question whether it should be split into 2 (or more) cohesively abstracted classes.
OK. So that's the backdrop. From your description, how about:
Draw one class for each data structure with one attribute for each structure member
Add a method to each class for each function that operates on the data structure
Add an association between the classes that captures their relationship
Place all the bits above in a package to represent the module
The final point - as in all these things - is to use the tool to illustrate what you want. Don't be overly constrained by the rules of the modelling language. The important thing is that the diagram communicates effectively to you & your collaborators. Satisfying the 'language lawyers' should be much less of a consideration.
hth.
Related
I'm designing an online music website where there are two main objects: User and Music. There are many operations users can do to music,like they can upload,listen to, collect,share and download a music. If I draw an UML class diagram, the diagram would look like
:
So my question is that is it OK with so many associations?
Those are not association, but methods which are to be defined in Music. You probably have just one association between both.
You might want to synthesize some use case cases first:
Based on this you can create a class model:
And detail this with behavioral design:
Having many associations between two classes is allowed by the UML standard. Strictly speaking, you should then add to each association role names to distinguish them when navigating from one class to the other.
The model you have would be acceptable for a model of a problem domain. If this model is intended to be a model of the solution domain, you might have one association with operations representing available actions, or signals representing completed actions.
Since you use the class User, you are probably trying to model the solution domain, though. That suggests you should use operations or signals.
So I have to make a class diagram for a Unity game I made as part of a project.
Trouble is I have to make a class for every script, of which there are 60.
The guidelines given to me simply states: Create a class diagram of your game.
So should I be splitting this up into several different class diagrams or literally just one inevitably disgusting 60 class diagram?
Your guidelines already told you what to do for this project: "Create a class diagram of your game." If this is a class project, create a single horse blanket, make your professor happy, and get a good grade.
However, on a real-world project, you should create many micro-subject-area diagrams for your audience. Review with each person only the diagrams that matter to them. That's how you (and your victims) can survive very large projects.
To create micro-subject-area diagrams, create a set of diagrams, each containing 7 ± 3 classes. Every class has only one fully-defining diagram showing all of its compartments and associations. Everywhere else, the class should appear only with its class name (to help define other classes) and a hyperlink. The hyperlink makes it work like an edge connector that takes you to its fully-defining diagram. (If you use MagicDraw, there is a free plug-in available, called AutoStyler, that automates this.)
It is legitimate to split up class diagrams, as class diagrams are meant to clarify things, which a gigantic mega class diagram arguably does not do. As such, class diagrams should usually concentrate on a few specific aspects that you want to show:
Do you want to provide a detailed structural representation of a given set of classes? If so, only depict these classes with all members, but skip any other classes (e.g., do not draw them as class nodes, but instead just mention their names as member/parameter types where appropriate).
Do you want to provide the class structure related to a particular functionality? If so, draw the relevant set of classes, but skip irrelevant members (e.g. members that have to be there for the sake of infrastructure support, but that are not a part of the actual business logic you are focusing on).
etc.
Now, when there is any expectation of completeness rather than a mere overview, it needs to be clear what parts of the diagram are complete and which ones are abbreviated. Again, this is possible in various ways:
As in the first bullet item above, mentioning a type name without drawing it is a clear indication that there is another type that is not depicted in the current diagram, without making the depicted class incomplete.
Alternatively, you can make use of "natural boundaries by abstraction" in your code: If you use classes from an extensive hierarchy, it may be sufficient to draw only the base class, or a few general base classes, in one diagram, while detailing the actual class hierarchy (without any of the context from the other diagram) in a separate diagram.
Two remarks on your specific question:
In your case, "60 scripts" sounds like various of them may easily fall into the last case, allowing you to separate overall architectural diagrams from a class hierarchy diagram.
You say there are "guidelines". If this is for some kind of competition or for any other kind of evaluation (e.g., for studying), take all this advice with caution: Internal grading guidelines might not necessarily be congruent with what would be practical/useful in an actual project.
tl;dr
Create as many class diagrams as you need
Avoid wallpaper diagrams only
Create wallpaper diagrams, though. But assemble them from existing diagrams.
Try to spot sub-domains (things that belong together) and place them in one diagram
In my UML class diagrams I usually do object collections by placing the attribute name above the arrow that relates both classes (as opposed to the other notation that just adds the attribute with brackets indicating the multiplicity).
But I have cases in which there are more than one collection of the same kind of object. For example (a very simple example off the top of my head):
Let's say there is a course that has some students who applied for it (so I have a collection of students, let's say an attribute that is an ArrayList of Student, called "applied"). But also, I need to keep a separate collection of the students who actually attended the course (let's say, "attended": another attribute that is an ArrayList, or even a different collection type, like a Vector, of Student).
Should I just add all attribute names on the relationship line?
I'm looking to do this the standard UML way. Only clarifying this because I know UML rules can be flexible when we need them to.
UML does allow for multiple associations between classes using roles.
You would simply draw two arrows:
See here for a similar question where the diagram is taken from.
Why and how are dependency relationships used?
I've come across a PiggyBank example where the Analysis Model consists of a class diagram with dependency relationships.
They use two relationships "use" and "instantiate" to describe the relationships between the classes.
I don't agree with the relationship that the boundary class TransferMoneyForm has a "use" to the TranferMoneControl. I believe it should be the other way around.
Can someone exaplain to me how these two relationships should be used. Thank you in advance.
The diagram shown there is not a correct and full UML class diagram. In such all the associations and generalizations should be defined, and what is abstract, what is public or not. To show what descends from what, what is hidden, what will be never instantiated and what fields of one class has types of other classes. Here we see only information about the
functions.
And it is logical. If you'll look at the previous chapter, there is written: "A control class represents a self-contained process..." So, they are talking on processes, not classes, instances and fields.
It is NOT a class diagram. And nowhere is said that it is. It is named "Transfer Money Participants diagram". They do use the elements of the class diagram, but not to the fullest and so create something more common. It is some approximate undefined diagram on some classes, something between class, communication or component diagrams. Maybe, it is the old style of IBM? Experts (What's the best UML diagramming tool?, 1st answer) say, "IBM Rational Software Architect did not implement UML 2.0". )
As for the question, who uses whom... According to Sparx VP UML, a "usage dependency" is a "relationship in which one element requires another element ... for its full functionality". According to wiki, "The client element somehow "uses" the supplier". Here the form hasn't sense without the controlling class, and vice versa. So, I'd say, the use goes in both sides. But more honest would be to create a normal communication or component diagram. The class diagram has NOT an element to say about sending and accepting the messages. And the "use" is definitely not for it. And when they have decided not to use logic, they can put there virtually anything.
If you are making a class diagram and one your class uses function(s) of another one, that is the case to draw a use dependency connection.
Are interfaces a layer between objects(different objects) and actions(different object types trying to perform same action)? and Interface checks what kind of object is it and how it can perform a particular action?
I'd say that it's better to think of an interface as a promise. In Java there is the interface construct that allows for inheritance of an API, but doesn't specify behavior. In general though, an interface is comprised of the methods an object presents for interacting with the object.
In duck-typed languages, if an object presents a particular set of methods (the interface) specific to a particular class, then that object is like the specifying class.
Enforcement of interface is complicated, since you need to specify some set of criteria for behavior. An interesting example would the design-by-contract ideas in Eiffel.
Are you asking about the term "interface" as used in a specific language (such as Java or Objective-C), or the generic meaning of the term?
If the latter, then an "interface" can be almost anything. Pour oil on water -- the line between them is an "interface". An interface is any point where two separate things meet and interact.
The term does not have a rigorous definition in computing, but refers to any place where two relatively distinct domains interact.
To understand interfaces in .net or Java, one must first recognize that inheritance combines two concepts:
Implementations of the derived type will include all fields (including private ones) of the base type, and can access any and all public or protected members of the base type as if it were its own.
Objects of the derived type may be freely used in place of objects of the base type.
Allowing objects to use members of more than one base type as their own is complicated. Some languages provide ways of doing so, but there can often be confusion as to which portion of which base object is being referred to, especially if one is inheriting from two classes which independently inherit from a third. Consequently, many frameworks only allow objects to inherit from one base object.
On the other hand, allowing objects to be substitutable for more than one other type of object does not create these difficulties. An object representing a database table may, for example, allow itself to be passed to a routine that wants a "thing that can enumerate contents, which are of type T (IEnumerable<T> in .net)", or a routine that wants a "thing that can have things of type T added to it" (ICollection<T> in .net), or a thing that wants a "thing that wants to know when it's no longer needed (IDisposable in .net)". Note that there are some things that want notification when they're no longer needed that do not represent enumerable collections, and there are other things that represent enumerable collections that can be abandoned without notification. Thus, neither type of object could inherit from the other, but if one uses an interface to represent "things which can enumerate their contents, which are of type T", or "things that want to know when they are no longer needed", then there's no problem having classes implement both interfaces.