This question already has an answer here:

I am documenting an existing system using UML 2, and a few of the classes are too big to comfortably fit into a single class box.

So far, I've resorted to breaking up the class into multiple boxes with the same header, with (cont'd) annotation added. This is supposed to represent a single Foo class with four public members a,b,c,d.

+---------+   +--------------+
|   Foo   |   | Foo (cont'd) |
+---------+   +--------------+
| +a      |   | +c           |
| +b      |   | +d           |
+---------+   +--------------+  (etc.)

Is there a standardized UML idiom that can be used to denote this?

marked as duplicate by durron597, user22815, gnat, Kilian Foth, TZHX Nov 4 '15 at 8:58

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.


No, there isn't a standardized approach for UML to support this.

Personally, I would even say that I wouldn't recommend doing this. Instead, I'd ask yourself why your class has so many members that it doesn't fit. It could be indicative of a poor design (too many attributes or operations on a class could indicate low cohesiveness), or it could be indicative of showing too much detail on your diagram (depending on the target audience and purpose, you may not need to show every member on every class). However, it may be fine and normal, especially since you don't say how many members the class has or how you are displaying the class diagram.

  • Let's pretend that this is fUML and we're representing an executable model. When a class represents the state of a large system, it can often have too many members to fit on a "small" (A4/Letter) page. – Kuba Ober Oct 15 '15 at 20:59
  • @KubaOber Why are you printing it if it's fUML? If that's the case, it's in some kind of tool and you should be viewing it in the tool and not on paper. The moment that you print it, it's not fUML anymore and you no longer need members. In addition, I would suspect that most tools would have the ability to have members in the class, but hide them based on attributes (for example, only showing public members). – Thomas Owens Oct 15 '15 at 21:18

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.