New answers tagged

0

Is it legal ? In principle, actors are not supposed to appear in sequence diagrams, since these diagrams are meant according to the UML specs to represent interactions within an enclosing classifier (see discussion around admiraalit's answer and here). But it is a common and accepted practice, especially if the other interacting elements are sub-systems ...


1

Yes, it is common practice to let an actor send messages directly to parts of the system, not to the system as a whole. I say 'parts' instead of 'objects' because in UML 2, the life lines in sequence diagrams correspond to parts, not to individual instances and are therefore not underlined. If you use UML 1 however, you should use objects and underline them....


0

I found an implementation impact reason not to do this for Entity Framework. If you make your EF-coupled entities a subclass of your domain model, you can't have (or I didn't see a way to have) subclass relationships among entities work right for EF. That is, if I have: Core.Event <-- Entities.Event But I want a subclass of Event called OnlineOnlyEvent ...


3

Your initial approach is already leading you down a rabbit hole. You are trying to design a data-model instead of an object-model. The difference is the data-model models data and the object-model models behavior. There is no "use-case" that a user needs to be a part of a group. The "use-case" is something the end-user does, like printing all groups on a ...


0

As you see, my domain model, got infected by hard-coded Ids, but how can I avoid that? I want to assign specific types to IceCreams. I know the Ids, cause they are master-data that I am inserting while creating the Model and won't never change. What I think you'll see in most cases is an extra level of indirection var VANILLA = 1; var typeXXL=...


Top 50 recent answers are included