𝗣𝗗𝗙 | For nearly ten years, the Unified Modeling Language (UML) has been the industry standard for visualizing, specifying, constructing, and. Grady Booch, James E. Rumbaugh, Ivar Jacobson: The unified modeling language user guide the ultimate tutorial to the UML from the original designers. Title, The Unified Modeling Language User Guide The Addison-Wesley object technology series. The Unified Modeling Language User. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh & I. Jacobson, Addison-. Wesley, 2nd Edition. Introduction to UML. Introduction .
|Language:||English, Arabic, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|ePub File Size:||24.57 MB|
|PDF File Size:||19.75 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Advanced Praise for The Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual, Second Edition “If you are a serious user of UML, th. As the de facto - Selection from Unified Modeling Language User Guide, The, Second Edition [Book] ISBN: View table of contents. “If you are a serious user of UML, there is no other book quite like this one. I have The unified modeling language reference manual / James Rumbaugh, Ivar 2nd ed. p. cm. ISBN 1. Computer software--Development. 2.
To develop software of lasting quality, you have to craft a solid architectural foundation that's resilient to change. To develop software rapidly, efficiently, and effectively, with a minimum of software scrap and rework, you have to have the right people, the right tools, and the right focus. To do all this consistently and predictably, with an appreciation for the lifetime costs of the system, you must have a sound development process that can adapt to the changing needs of your business and technology.
Modeling is a central part of all the activities that lead up to the deployment of good software. We build models to communicate the desired structure and behavior of our system. We build models to visualize and control the system's architecture.
We build models to better understand the system we are building, often exposing opportunities for simplification and reuse. We build models to manage risk. The Importance of Modeling If you want to build a dog house, you can pretty much start with a pile of lumber, some nails, and a few basic tools, such as a hammer, saw, and tape measure.
In a few hours, with little prior planning, you'll likely end up with a dog house that's reasonably functional, and you can probably do it with no one else's help.
As long as it's big enough and doesn't leak too much, your dog will be happy. If it doesn't work out, you can always start over, or get a less demanding dog. If you want to build a house for your family, you can start with a pile of lumber, some nails, and a few basic tools, but it's going to take you a lot longer, and your family will certainly be more demanding than the dog.
In this case, unless you've already done it a few dozen times before, you'll be better served by doing some detailed planning before you pound the first nail or lay the foundation. At the very least, you'll want to make some sketches of how you want the house to look. If you want to build a quality house that meets the needs of your family and of local building codes, you'll need to draw some blueprints as well, so that you can think through the intended use of the rooms and the practical details of lighting, heating, and plumbing.
Given these plans, you can start to make reasonable estimates of the amount of time and materials this job will require. Although it is humanly possible to build a house yourself, you'll find it is much more efficient to work with others, possibly subcontracting out many key work products or downloading prebuilt materials.
As long as you stay true to your plans and stay within the limitations of time and money, your family will most likely be satisfied. If it doesn't work out, you can't exactly get a new family, so it is best to set expectations early and manage change carefully.
If you want to build a high-rise office building, it would be infinitely stupid for you to start with a pile of lumber, some nails, and a few basic tools. Because you are probably using other people's money, they will demand to have input into the size, shape, and style of the building. Often, they will change their minds, even after you've started building. You will want to do extensive planning, because the cost of failure is high.
You will be just a part of a much larger group responsible for developing and deploying the building, and so the team will need all sorts of blueprints and models to communicate with one another.
As long as you get the right people and the right tools and actively manage the process of transforming an architectural concept into reality, you will likely end up with a building that will satisfy its tenants. If you want to keep building buildings, then you will want to be certain to balance the desires of your tenants with the realities of building technology, and you will want to treat the rest of your team professionally, never placing them at any risk or driving them so hard that they burn out.
Curiously, a lot of software development organizations start out wanting to build high rises but approach the problem as if they were knocking out a dog house.
Sometimes, you get lucky. If you have the right people at the right moment and if all the planets align properly, then you might, just might, get your team to push out a software product that dazzles its users. Typically, however, you can't get all the right people the right ones are often already overcommitted , it's never the right moment yesterday would have been better , and the planets never seem to align instead, they keep moving out of your control.
Given the increasing demand to develop software in Internet time, development teams often fall back on the only thing they really know how to do well pound out lines of code. Heroic programming efforts are legend in this industry, and it often seems that working harder is the proper reaction to any crisis in development.
However, these are not necessarily the right lines of code, and some projects are of such a magnitude that even adding more hours to the work day is not enough to get the job done. If you really want to build the software equivalent of a house or a high rise, the problem is more than just a matter of writing lots of software in fact, the trick is in creating the right software and in figuring out how to write less software.
This makes quality software development an issue of architecture and process and tools. Even so, many projects start out looking like dog houses but grow to the magnitude of a high rise simply because they are a victim of their own success. There comes a time when, if there was no consideration given to architecture, process, or tools, that the dog house, now grown into a high rise, collapses of its own weight. The collapse of a dog house may annoy your dog; the failure of a high rise will materially affect its tenants.
Unsuccessful software projects fail in their own unique ways, but all successful projects are alike in many ways.
There are many elements that contribute to a successful software organization; one common thread is the use of modeling. Modeling is a proven and well-accepted engineering technique. We build architectural models of houses and high rises to help their users visualize the final product. We may even build mathematical models in order to analyze the effects of winds or earthquakes on our buildings. Modeling is not just a part of the building industry. It would be inconceivable to deploy a new aircraft or an automobile without first building models from computer models to physical wind tunnel models to full-scale prototypes.
New electrical devices, from microprocessors to telephone switching systems require some degree of modeling in order to better understand the system and to communicate those ideas to others.
In the motion picture industry, storyboarding, which is a form of modeling, is central to any production. In the fields of sociology, economics, and business management, we build models so that we can validate our theories or try out new ones with minimal risk and cost. What, then, is a model? Simply put, A model is a simplification of reality.
A model provides the blueprints of a system. Models may encompass detailed plans, as well as more general plans that give a 30,foot view of the system under consideration. A good model includes those elements that have broad effect and omits those minor elements that are not relevant to the given level of abstraction.
Every system may be described from different aspects using different models, and each model is therefore a semantically closed abstraction of the system. A model may be structural, emphasizing the organization of the system, or it may be behavioral, emphasizing the dynamics of the system. Why do we model? There is one fundamental reason. We build models so that we can better understand the system we are developing.
Through modeling, we achieve four aims. How the UML addresses these four things is discussed in Chapter 2. Models help us to visualize a system as it is or as we want it to be. Models permit us to specify the structure or behavior of a system. Models give us a template that guides us in constructing a system.
Models document the decisions we have made. Modeling is not just for big systems. Even the software equivalent of a dog house can benefit from some modeling. However, it's definitely true that the larger and more complex the system, the more important modeling becomes, for one very simple reason: We build models of complex systems because we cannot comprehend such a system in its entirety. There are limits to the human ability to understand complexity. Through modeling, we narrow the problem we are studying by focusing on only one aspect at a time.
This is essentially the approach of "divide-and-conquer" that Edsger Dijkstra spoke of years ago: Attack a hard problem by dividing it into a series of smaller problems that you can solve. Furthermore, through modeling, we amplify the human intellect. A model properly chosen can enable the modeler to work at higher levels of abstraction. Saying that one ought to model does not necessarily make it so. In fact, a number of studies suggest that most software organizations do little if any formal modeling.
Plot the use of modeling against the complexity of a project, and you'll find that the simpler the project, the less likely it is that formal modeling will be used. The operative word here is "formal. A developer might sketch out an idea on a blackboard or a scrap of paper in order to visualize a part of a system, or the team might use CRC cards to work through a scenario or the design of a mechanism.
There's nothing wrong with any of these models. If it works, by all means use it. However, these informal models are often ad hoc and do not provide a common language that can easily be shared with others. Just as there exists a common language of blueprints for the construction industry, a common language for electrical engineering, and a common language for mathematical modeling, so too can a development organization benefit by using a common language for software modeling.
Every project can benefit from some modeling. Even in the realm of disposable software, where it's sometimes more effective to throw away inadequate software because of the productivity offered by visual programming languages, modeling can help the development team better visualize the plan of their system and allow them to develop more rapidly by helping them build the right thing.
The more complex your project, the more likely it is that you will fail or that you will build the wrong thing if you do no modeling at all. All interesting and useful systems have a natural tendency to become more complex over time. So, although you might think you don't need to model today, as your system evolves you will regret that decision, after it is too late. Principles of Modeling The use of modeling has a rich history in all the engineering disciplines.
That experience suggests four basic principles of modeling. First, The choice of what models to create has a profound influence on how a problem is attacked and how a solution is shaped. In other words, choose your models well.
The right models will brilliantly illuminate the most wicked development problems, offering insight that you simply could not gain otherwise; the wrong models will mislead you, causing you to focus on irrelevant issues. Setting aside software for a moment, suppose you are trying to tackle a problem in quantum physics.
Certain problems, such as the interaction of photons in time-space, are full of wonderfully hairy mathematics. Choose a different model than the calculus, and all of a sudden this inherent complexity becomes tractable. In this field, this is precisely the value of Feynmann diagrams, which provide a graphical rendering of a very complex problem. Similarly, in a totally different domain, suppose you are constructing a new building and you are concerned about how it might behave in high winds.
If you build a physical model and then subject it to wind tunnel tests, you might learn some interesting things, although materials in the small don't flex exactly as they do in the large. Hence, if you build a mathematical model and then subject it to simulations, you will learn some different things, and you will also probably be able to play with more new scenarios than if you were using a physical model. By rigorously and continuously testing your models, you'll end up with a far higher level of confidence that the system you have modeled will, in fact, behave as you expect it to in the real world.
In software, the models you choose can greatly affect your world view. If you build a system through the eyes of a database developer, you will likely focus on entity-relationship models that push behavior into triggers and stored procedures.
If you build a system through the eyes of a structured analyst, you will likely end up with models that are algorithmic-centric, with data flowing from process to process. If you build a system through the eyes of an object-oriented developer, you'll end up with a system whose architecture is centered around a sea of classes and the patterns of interaction that direct how those classes work together. Any of these approaches might be right for a given application and development culture, although experience suggests that the object-oriented view is superior in crafting resilient architectures, even for systems that might have a large database or computational element.
That fact notwithstanding, the point is that each world view leads to a different kind of system, with different costs and benefits. Second, Every model may be expressed at different levels of precision. If you are building a high rise, sometimes you need a 30,foot view for instance, to help your investors visualize its look and feel. Other times, you need to get down to the level of the studs for instance, when there's a tricky pipe run or an unusual structural element.
The same is true with software models. Sometimes, a quick and simple executable model of the user interface is exactly what you need; at other times, you have to get down and dirty with the bits, such as when you are specifying cross-system interfaces or wrestling with networking bottlenecks. In any case, the best kinds of models are those that let you choose your degree of detail, depending on who is doing the viewing and why they need to view it. An analyst or an end user will want to focus on issues of what; a developer will want to focus on issues of how.
Both of these stakeholders will want to visualize a system at different levels of detail at different times.
Third, The best models are connected to reality. A physical model of a building that doesn't respond in the same way as do real materials has only limited value; a mathematical model of an aircraft that assumes only ideal conditions and perfect manufacturing can mask some potentially fatal characteristics of the real aircraft.
It's best to have models that have a clear connection to reality, and where that connection is weak, to know exactly how those models are divorced from the real world. All models simplify reality; the trick is to be sure that your simplifications don't mask any important details.
In software, the Achilles heel of structured analysis techniques is the fact that there is a basic disconnect between its analysis model and the system's design model. Failing to bridge this chasm causes the system as conceived and the system as built to diverge over time. In objectoriented systems, it is possible to connect all the nearly independent views of a system into one semantic whole. Fourth, No single model is sufficient. Every nontrivial system is best approached through a small set of nearly independent models.
If you are constructing a building, there is no single set of blueprints that reveal all its details. At the very least, you'll need floor plans, elevations, electrical plans, heating plans, and plumbing plans. The operative phrase here is "nearly independent.
As in the case of a building, you can study electrical plans in isolation, but you can also see their mapping to the floor plan and perhaps even their interaction with the routing of pipes in the plumbing plan. The five views of an architecture are discussed in Chapter 2. The same is true of object-oriented software systems. To understand the architecture of such a system, you need several complementary and interlocking views: a use case view exposing the requirements of the system , a design view capturing the vocabulary of the problem space and the solution space , a process view modeling the distribution of the system's processes and threads , an implementation view addressing the physical realization of the system , and a deployment view focusing on system engineering issues.
Each of these views may have structural, as well as behavioral, aspects. Together, these views represent the blueprints of software. Depending on the nature of the system, some models may be more important than others.
The Unified Modeling Language User Guide
For example, in data-intensive systems, models addressing static design views will dominate. In GUIintensive systems, static and dynamic use case views are quite important. In hard real time systems, dynamic process views tend to be more important. Finally, in distributed systems, such as one finds in Web-intensive applications, implementation and deployment models are the most important.
Unified Modeling Language User Guide, The, Second Edition
Object-Oriented Modeling Civil engineers build many kinds of models. Most commonly, there are structural models that help people visualize and specify parts of systems and the way those parts relate to one another. Depending on the most important business or engineering concerns, engineers might also build dynamic models for instance, to help them to study the behavior of a structure in the presence of an earthquake.
Each kind of model is organized differently, and each has its own focus. In software, there are several ways to approach a model. The two most common ways are from an algorithmic perspective and from an object-oriented perspective. The traditional view of software development takes an algorithmic perspective.
In this approach, the main building block of all software is the procedure or function. This view leads developers to focus on issues of control and the decomposition of larger algorithms into smaller ones. There's nothing inherently evil about such a point of view except that it tends to yield brittle systems. As requirements change and they will and the system grows and it will , systems built with an algorithmic focus turn out to be very hard to maintain.
The contemporary view of software development takes an object-oriented perspective. In this approach, the main building block of all software systems is the object or class. Simply put, an object is a thing, generally drawn from the vocabulary of the problem space or the solution space; a class is a description of a set of common objects. Every object has identity you can name it or otherwise distinguish it from other objects , state there's generally some data associated with it , and behavior you can do things to the object, and it can do things to other objects, as well.
For example, consider a simple three-tier architecture for a billing system, involving a user interface, middleware, and a database. In the user interface, you will find concrete objects, such as buttons, menus, and dialog boxes.
In the database, you will find concrete objects, such as tables representing entities from the problem domain, including customers, products, and orders. In the middle layer, you will find objects such as transactions and business rules, as well as higher-level views of problem entities, such as customers, products, and orders. The object-oriented approach to software development is decidedly a part of the mainstream simply because it has proven to be of value in building systems in all sorts of problem domains and encompassing all degrees of size and complexity.
Furthermore, most contemporary languages, operating systems, and tools are object-oriented in some fashion, giving greater cause to view the world in terms of objects.
These questions are discussed in Chapter 2. A number of consequences flow from the choice of viewing the world in an object-oriented fashion: What's the structure of a good object-oriented architecture?
What artifacts should the project create?
Stay ahead with the world's most comprehensive technology and business learning platform.
Who should create them? How should they be measured? Visualizing, specifying, constructing, and documenting object-oriented systems is exactly the purpose of the Unified Modeling Language. Chapter 2. The UML may be used to visualize, specify, construct, and document the artifacts of a softwareintensive system. The UML is appropriate for modeling systems ranging from enterprise information systems to distributed Web-based applications and even to hard real time embedded systems.
It is a very expressive language, addressing all the views needed to develop and then deploy such systems. Even though it is expressive, the UML is not difficult to understand and to use.
Learning to apply the UML effectively starts with forming a conceptual model of the language, which requires learning three major elements: the UML's basic building blocks, the rules that dictate how these building blocks may be put together, and some common mechanisms that apply throughout the language. The UML is only a language and so is just one part of a software development method. The UML is process independent, although optimally it should be used in a process that is use case driven, architecture-centric, iterative, and incremental.
The UML Is a Language A language provides a vocabulary and the rules for combining words in that vocabulary for the purpose of communication. A modeling language is a language whose vocabulary and rules focus on the conceptual and physical representation of a system.
A modeling language such as the UML is thus a standard language for software blueprints. The basic principles of modeling are discussed in Chapter 1. Modeling yields an understanding of a system. No one model is ever sufficient. Rather, you often need multiple models that are connected to one another in order to understand anything but the most trivial system.
For software- intensive systems, this requires a language that addresses the different views of a system's architecture as it evolves throughout the software development life cycle. The vocabulary and rules of a language such as the UML tell you how to create and read wellformed models, but they don't tell you what models you should create and when you should create them. That's the role of the software development process. A well-defined process will guide you in deciding what artifacts to produce, what activities and what workers to use to create them and manage them, and how to use those artifacts to measure and control the project as a whole.
The UML Is a Language for Visualizing For many programmers, the distance between thinking of an implementation and then pounding it out in code is close to zero. You think it, you code it. In fact, some things are best cast directly in code. Text is a wonderfully minimal and direct way to write expressions and algorithms.
In such cases, the programmer is still doing some modeling, albeit entirely mentally. He or she may even sketch out a few ideas on a white board or on a napkin.
However, there are several problems with this. First, communicating those conceptual models to others is error-prone unless everyone involved speaks the same language. Typically, projects and organizations develop their own language, and it is difficult to understand what's going on if you are an outsider or new to the group.
Second, there are some things about a software system you can't understand unless you build models that transcend the textual programming language. For example, the meaning of a class hierarchy can be inferred, but not directly grasped, by staring at the code for all the classes in the hierarchy. Similarly, the physical distribution and possible migration of the objects in a Webbased system can be inferred, but not directly grasped, by studying the system's code. Third, if the developer who cut the code never wrote down the models that are in his or her head, that information would be lost forever or, at best, only partially recreatable from the implementation, once that developer moved on.
Writing models in the UML addresses the third issue: An explicit model facilitates communication. Some things are best modeled textually; others are best modeled graphically. Indeed, in all interesting systems, there are structures that transcend what can be represented in a programming language.
The UML is such a graphical language. This addresses the second problem described earlier. The UML is more than just a bunch of graphical symbols. Rather, behind each symbol in the UML notation is a well-defined semantics.
In this manner, one developer can write a model in the UML, and another developer, or even another tool, can interpret that model unambiguously. This addresses the first issue described earlier.
In particular, the UML addresses the specification of all the important analysis, design, and implementation decisions that must be made in developing and deploying a software-intensive system. Things that are best expressed graphically are done so graphically in the UML, whereas things that are best expressed textually are done so in the programming language.
Modeling the structure of a system is discussed in Sections 2 and 3. This mapping permits forward engineering: The generation of code from a UML model into a programming language. The reverse is also possible: You can reconstruct a model from an implementation back into the UML. Reverse engineering is not magic.
Unless you encode that information in the implementation, information is lost when moving forward from models to code. Reverse engineering thus requires tool support with human intervention. Widely recognized for these and many contributions in the field, he is a popular speaker at technology conferences around the world.
James Rumbaugh is one of the leading object-oriented methodologists. He has been working on object-oriented methodology and tools for many years. He developed the DSM object-oriented programming language, the state tree model of control, the OMT object modeling notation, and the Object Modeling Tool graphic editor. Rumbaugh received his Ph. During his Ph. Rumbaugh was one of the inventors of data flow computer architecture. His career has dealt with semantics of computation, tools for programming productivity, and applications using complex algorithms and data structures.
Unified Modeling Language User Guide, The, 2nd Edition
Rumbaugh has published journal articles on his work and has spoken at leading object-oriented conferences. He writes a regular column for the Journal of Object-Oriented Programming. Rumbaugh is the lead author of the recent best-selling book Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, published by Prentice Hall. He and his colleagues developed the OMT methodology described in the book based on real-world applications at GE, and they have worked to extend the original methodology.
He has taught courses based on the methodology to different audiences around the world, ranging from one-hour seminars to intensive several-day training courses. He has a B. During his career at GE, he worked on a variety of problems, including the design of one of the first time-sharing operating systems, early work in interactive graphics, algorithms for computed tomography, use of parallel machines for fast image generation, VLSI chip design, and finally, object-oriented technology.
Jim developed OMTool, an interactive graphical editor for manipulation of object model diagrams.
The editor is commercially available.In this way, the child shares the structure and the behavior of the parent. An interface might represent the complete behavior of a class or component or only a part of that behavior. Those partners contributing to the UML 1. ISBN 1. Unlike components which exist at run time , a package is purely conceptual meaning that it exists only at development time.
- ETS OFFICIAL GUIDE PDF
- MAUDSLEY GUIDELINES 2012 PDF
- CORE CONCEPTS IN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 5TH EDITION PDF
- INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 5TH EDITION PDF
- FUNDAMENTALS OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR FOURTH EDITION PDF
- STEPHEN KING EBOOKS EPUB
- PANSIYA PANAS JATHAKA POTHA PDF
- THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS EPUB
- APLIKASI EBOOK ER JAR
- ENCHANTED FOREST PDF
- LAL KITAB REMEDIES PDF
- BUKU EKOLOGI TUMBUHAN PDF
- CURRICULUM VITAE BAHASA INDONESIA PDF
- SUSAN KAY PHANTOM PDF
- MAUDSLEY GUIDELINES 2012 PDF