Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
No, but you can name the instance of class B and then set that as the corresponding attribute's value in the A instance's run state.I see. Hmm, I actually want the arrow to be of type "has".
In UML, such relationships are expressed using classes. Since every instance of a class will "have" the same contents, there's no point in expressing that in object diagrams.I want to create a software structure survey, and I have an object "server" having 3 members (=attributes) of class "Connection". Each connection calls its own callstack to different connected objects. I need the has-relationship arrow to illustrate such scenario. This is for the docs to show via UML how the main software concept is built.
...express the relationship at the class level as attributes...I parsed my C++ source code and there is actually already that relationship because the classes have their proper attributes, I mean class A has an attribute of class B.
...and then in the objects set the run state of the containing object to the name of the contained object...What do you exactly mean here? Is it something how I can tweak the accociation arrow between two objects?
But whatever works for you is fine
No, I meant something like this (no control flows)aha OK, you meant a "dependency" with stereotype "call". Hmm, I tried it but must say it is very time-consuming to create a diagram this way, because depedencies as calls are not part of the toolbox but I have to go quite deep into the submenus to do such setup.
... snip...
I personally would either use CallOperationActions on an Activity diagram linked by something like a <<call>> Dependency, or use EA's profiler against running software.
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | use | | control flow | | use | |
| a |--------------->| op1 |--------------->| op3 |--------------->| b |
| | | | | | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
When I want to show the scenario of all important objects in my software, and when I want to show in my diagram how they are connected to each other by important method call chains (callstacks), I need a structure diagram. I can for instance have 3 objects of the same class which are all processed by a relevant method call chain (callstack), pipelining so to speak.I want to show the spatial structure of the program, which means the class instances living in the program, independently of the time.This doesn't make sense. Instances are by nature time-dependent: they get created, exist for a time and then they are deleted. Classes are independent of time, but instances are not.
QuoteAnd I want to show important callstacks, starting from one object via several method calls to another object aiming in a target method call.This is not permitted in UML. Connectors link elements, they do not link operations (or attributes).
So the start point of the arrow is in my example A::op1() but the end point is B::op3().
EA does have the Link to Element Feature function, which allows you to pseudo-link a connector to an attribute or an operation, rather than to the element as a whole (pretty much a direct violation of UML syntax). But that only works with attributes/operation defined in the element -- ie classifiers, not instances, and not inherited features. So if you want to use that function you'll have to use classes, not objects.
/Uffe
+------+ +------+
| | op1 op3| |
| a #----------------# b |
| | | |
+------+ +------+If you've got the operations modelled as UML operations (in class elements), you can use CallOperation Actions in an activity diagramAn activity program means the blocks are events which happen at a certain time, and the arrows give the path of how the timeline runs from even to event. This means an activity diagram is not what I can use, because I don't want to show events in a timeline. I want to show the spatial structure of the program, which means the class instances living in the program, independently of the time. And I want to show important callstacks, starting from one object via several method calls to another object aiming in a target method call.
I would use sequence diagrams to show that aspect.Sequence diagrams do not provide free placing of the objects, which is very obstructive. The time aspect is not what I want to show, but I want to show how key operations of objects are wired. The interesting thing is just, a callstack begins with a certain operation and ends with a certain operation.
Geert
+------+ +------+
| | op1 op3| |
| a #----------------# b |
| | | |
+------+ +------+
If # were ports in my sketch, I could label them with op1 and op3 and connect both ports with an accociation. But this looks wrong to me.
class A {
void op1() {
op2();
}
void op2() {
b.op3();
}
B b;
}
class B {
void op3() {
}
}
A a;
No it isn't. I just tested it on a communication diagram using these instructions.Yes, you're right. It's with RMB-click and choose "message" there. Thanx
Geert
In a communications or sequence diagram you should be able to select an existing operation.It's only possible in sequence diagrams.
See here: https://sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/15.2/model_domains/createacommmessage.html
Geert
I guess you are looking for a Communication DiagramYes, a communication diagram makes sense to show the wired structure of the C++ program. But as I tried I saw there is no possibility either to choose one of the parsed C++ class methods as names for the accociations between class instances in such diagram. How can I use what I have parsed?
An alternative (used much more) is the Sequence diagram
Geert
