Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Spring & UML Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Spring & UML

    I have following question:

    Since most common architecture in spring driven web application is following (& is simple to understand)

    controller -> service -> dao

    I was wondering is there any need of modeling using Sequence Diagrams in Spring driven applications? I am basically trying to find out benefit of Sequence Diagrams in case whole application is based on above architecture.

  • #2
    Does this mean we can get rid of Use Cases too?

    I've found that, for Spring applications, nice basic Class Diagrams are nice (especially for new people). As far as Sequence Diagrams go, unless you drill down fairly deep, they are not AS necessary. However, if you are newer to Spring, I think that hashing out a Sequence Diagram can really help you to understand how Spring works.

    Just my two cents,

    Steve

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by javaj2ee View Post
      I have following question:

      Since most common architecture in spring driven web application is following (& is simple to understand)

      controller -> service -> dao

      I was wondering is there any need of modeling using Sequence Diagrams in Spring driven applications? I am basically trying to find out benefit of Sequence Diagrams in case whole application is based on above architecture.
      It all depends on what each tier does

      If it is a simple CRUD app (EditUserController -> UserService -> UserDao) then nope, if OTOH the Service is non trivial and interacts with other components/message queue etc. then maybe yes.

      Comment


      • #4
        The amount of UML/design documentation depends on your needs

        While UML is sleek and neat, the people I sometimes need to share it with can't get past the goofy "actor" symbol. It makes UML look like a toy. Many times, I make a lot more headway and need less tools when I use the incredible design tool of "Word". Use cases and sequence diagrams are tools to represent the entities and their steps of interaction. It shows who talks to what, and depicts that interaction at a certain level.

        I can cram a lot more info in table in a Word document, along with an outline of steps using that, and people can ingest that without reading lots of UML. The first interaction diagrams are high level, and as I peel the layers, I have additional, more detailed diagrams.

        Quite frankly, I could easily see a set of wiki articles as a more pragmatic and sustainable mechanism to track use cases and sequences of interaction. They are more likely to be maintained and would help avoid vashioned rationale.

        Remember, the goal of UML is to tell a story about your software, so don't get too wrapped up in UML for the sake of UML. Remember the story, and present it in context for the audience that needs to know this story.

        Comment


        • #5
          I personally find UML useful during thought-process. That means when I have to think about what objects I need and how they are related. If I draw them on a screen (class diagrams) and think about their relationships, I can go few levels deeper than if I am just thinking without drawing them.
          Similarly, if I am drawing sequence diagrams I can think few levels deeper, UML forces me to think where will I put a method, in which class. I do not find UML useful for something obvious.
          That may be my personal experience only.
          On the other hand, I do understand recoding stories in UML for OTHERS, so I agree with you gregturn.
          Colin, thanks for your answer, I get the point.

          Comment

          Working...
          X