UML is not a programming language but there are tools that can be used to generate code in various languages using UML diagrams. UML has a direct relation with object-oriented analysis and design.
Relationship in UML allows one thing to relate with other things inside the system. An association, dependency, generalization, and realization relationships are defined by UML. Composition relationship can also be used to represent that object can be a part of only one composite at a time.
You can draw UML diagrams online using our software, or check out some UML diagram examples at our diagramming community. What is a use case diagram? In Java, a Has-A relationship is also known as composition. In Java, a Has-A relationship simply means that an instance of one class has a reference to an instance of another class or an other instance of the same class. UML diagrams don't run, but require a lot of time. So they are good only if your organization size can manage them You cannot represent every condition in a sequence diagram.
It's impossible if you want to deliver. So state diagrams should convey basic facts, not all the possible outcomes. Good UML software costs money and it takes some time to master properly. UML is not good nor bad. It can be a good tool, but it must be used in the proper context. Lacking features? Stefano Borini Stefano Borini k 92 92 gold badges silver badges bronze badges. DigitalRoss DigitalRoss k 23 23 gold badges silver badges bronze badges.
I don't see how UML is not agile - it's just a tool. Isn't it in some ways kind of the opposite of Agile? The whole idea of upfront design and then "coding" seems to somehow bleed out of the whole UML monster.
I agree that it isn't precisely defined as anti-agile, but it doesn't really seem to be totally friendly to an incremental, evolving design. Isn't an Agile team supposed to sit down and tweak things with the customer? After tweaking the UML? Agile is not about the you document it. Agile is about the process to get there and documenting only to create value.
Some parts of UML fit seamlessly i. Other parts i. FelixM FelixM 1, 1 1 gold badge 9 9 silver badges 18 18 bronze badges. Alex J. I believe in the following: Make it work. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. Manage consent. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website.
Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience. Necessary Necessary.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". It does not store any personal data. Functional Functional. What about GUIs, web wireframes, authorization, etc. Text and graphic models are both useful and often interchangeable. Stereotype and profiles are not effective for usable extensions. Note that I'm not necessarily saying UML is bad. I'm simply saying that it is not helping the goal of "model-driven development", which is what I'm interested in.
I don't understand the comment about "holy grail". UML is the equivalent of taking a screwdriver and a hammer and taping them together and calling it a "Universal Fastening Tool.
The idea is to be able to develop solutions at a level of abstraction appropriate to the problem domain - that is, it is an attempt to express solutions to problems in the most natural syntax for expressing those solutions. The problem domain itself is characterized with an operational model that is, by a model that can be executed by computer. So, MDD can be a very attractive approach, albeit one with two major requirements:. It's my understanding that the UML2 effort was intended to address point 1, probably under the belief that industrial experience with UML showed that point 2 was satisfied for some large subset of problem domains.
Unfortunately, and this is what I think William Cook was getting at, UML does not satisfy point 2 for anywhere near the scope of problems that was thought. Either the source code generated from the UML needs to be tweaked to resolve those small gaps between the UML design and the program requirements forcing developers to work with generated code that has different standards for maintainability and reducing the applicability of the UML artifacts to the implementation ; OR The UML gets cluttered up with a lot of detail that reduces its usability as a language for communicating about the design.
In either case, the promise of MDD is unfulfilled. UML might be considered the worst thing that happened to MDD because it occupied the attention of MDD tool developers to the exclusion of models that might actually work albeit for a smaller set of software problems.
UML is great as long as it is just a modeling language. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams?
0コメント