visual paradigm identifying relationship - visual-paradigm

What does this checkbox mean? When I click it the foreign_key line representation becomes solid instead of dashed.
When I click it I also look the 'Sync to association' dropdown. What is this doing?

The following post explained the differences between the identifying and non-identifying relationships.
What's the difference between identifying and non-identifying relationships?
In the ERD solid connector is use to representing the identifying relationship, where the dotted connector is for representing the non-identifying relationship.
And the "Sync. to association" option is for the ERD and class model synchronization feature in Visual Paradigm. In Visual Paradigm you can have your ER model mapped with your class model (i.e. entity map to class, column map to attribute, and relationship in ERD map to association in class model), and you can generate hibernate out of it. By turning off the "Sync. to association" then that relationship will not be converted into association when you synchronize this ER model into class model. Details about the synchronization can be found at http://www.visual-paradigm.com/product/vpuml/features/dbobjectpersistence.jsp#syncorm

Related

Does combining composition with association still follow the rules of OOP?

When it comes to class diagrams, can an association or aggregation exist between two objects that are in composition with one base object?
Example:
Class Car has a composition relation with class Engine and class Fueltank. So Car has An Engine and a Fueltank, and Engine and a Fueltank are dependent on Car. But Engine also needs information from Fueltank, without intervention of Car (in accordance with a sequence diagram for example). That means Engine and Fueltank also have a relationship although, they're both compositions of the Car. See diagram below:
So, the question is, may such “loops”, or better redudant associations, in class diagrams occur? Or does that undermine the rules of OOP?
This is legal UML...
This kind of combination of composition and association is perfectly legal in UML and does not undermine OOP. There are only a few constraints in UML in this regard:
Composite aggregation is a strong form of aggregation that requires a part object be included in at most one composite
object at a time.
Compositions may be linked in a directed acyclic graph with transitive deletion characteristics;
An end Property of an Association may only be marked as a shared or composite aggregation if the Association is binary and the other end is not marked as a shared or composite aggregation.
The first two restrictions are at object level and not necessarily at the class. The last restriction is for the class diagram: it says that a same association can't have composite or shared aggregation at both end. None of those restrictions are relevant for your diagram.
... but may not express what you think
The problem is that this diagram does not express what you think. It says that a Car c is composed of an Engine e and a Fueltank f; it also says that e is aggregated with a Fueltank, which could be f by coincidence, but which could also be another Fueltank and even a Fueltank of another Car. The model does not well represent the triangular relationship between the classes. Here some hints:
You may prevent the inconsistencies by adding some constraints that the engine fuel tank is the same than the car fuel tank.
You may make the engine/fueltank relation a derived association (i.e. somehow the engine's fuel tank will be derived from the car's fuel tank.
You may make the car/fueltank relation a derived association (i.e. the car's fuel tank is derived from its engine).
you ignore the relationship engine/fueltank and instead, use the car as a mediator between its components.

An entity relationship diagram shows the relationship between entities, but how do you show the relationship between attributes?

Say I had three types of vehicle, which are all related by some similar attributes.
What is the best way to show these relationships?
In traditional entity-relationship diagrams such a relation between attributes is not shown. This notation is exclusively reserved for foreign keys to primary keys relationships. For example if you would have a Manufacturer entity with a (unique) Id attribute, you could then relate a new attribute Car manufacturer id to it to show to what entity it refers.
In an enhanced ERD, you could use the IsA relationship and move the common attributes to a separate entity called Vehicle. The IsA relationship would then mean that the same attributes are inherited by the inheriting entities. But your example is not straight forward, since a Boat has no Number of wheels. So you'd need to further add a Rolling vehicle entity, making the diagram very complex.
Very pragmatically, you could:
Use the same attribute name for the same kind of information.
Use a data dictionary describing each unique attribute in a generic way applicable to all teh entities that use it.
Or graphically use some dotted connector between common attributes (instead of the plain lines which are confusing)
Or, if the similar entities are close on the diagram, draw colored horizontal boxes surrounding groups of identical attributes.

The components of a Class Diagram and how it differs to ERD

I want to understand a class diagram more fully and I am finding lots of conflicting information.
My first question is, what is the difference between class diagram and ERD? Not necessarily in look, but in classification. e.g. I have read that a class diagram is a type of ERD and I have read that a class diagram and an ERD are two different things.
My second question is around how the class diagram should look, I was given a basic tutorial on how to create a class diagram and I was taught that each class should be connected with a single line, with an arrow that looks like a 'Play' symbol (example 1 in the attached image)
But since doing some research into it, I am finding lots of examples where different connectors are used to denote association, aggregation, composition, inheritance etc. (example 2 in the attached image)
As mine is more simplistic, just showing the relationship and the multiplicities, does that mean that I have just learned a more basic version of class diagram and the extra connectors are an advanced step?
Or are they both something different?
Thanks for your help
Holly
First of all, welcome to Stack Overflow!
A class diagram is a type of static structure diagram that describes the structure of a system by showing the system's classes, their attributes, operations (or methods), and the relationships among objects. Wiki link
An entity relationship diagram (ERD) shows the relationships of entity sets stored in a database. Link
Therefore the answer to your question of "what is the difference between class diagram and ERD"?
The class diagram has nothing to do with fact how the classes are persisted in the data layer. It shows only the logical relationship between classes and the properties of the classes. While the ERD diagram illustrates the logical structure of database; what the database tables, table-column, primary keys, foreign keys, etc. are, and last but not least the relationships between database tables.
As for the question "Is this just a more advanced version of class diagram? Or a more updated version?":
There are cases when the ERD diagram can look similar to the corresponding class diagram, but the persistence data model can be way different from the class (domain) model. Furthermore a class diagram has no any information about how a class is persisted in the database - as I've already mentioned -, therefore an ERD has other kind of information than a class diagram.
As for the notations you linked:
A proper class diagram contains notations like in the second link. An example is the following diagram:
For more info what those arrows mean, click here for the corresponding SO answer.
What you are taught about how to make a class diagram (like at the first link you shown), can also be useful but it is a customized class diagram rather than an proper class diagram following the UML standards and notations because:
I find it strange that the arrow is not on the line itself
There is a shared ownership relationship (aggregation) between Customer and Vehicle. It means that a Customer can have (own) a Vehicle but the Vehicle can still exist as its own, without a Customer. This relationship can be represented with the aggregation notation. (See arrow 5a, or the class diagram below)
I find it also strange that a vehicle can have multiple Customers, as you notated with "0..*". But of course it is possible, since I do not know what kind of domain you try to model with the diagram...I made an UML diagram with proper signs, check this out:
Summing up, it is wise to follow the UML standards and conventions, since it is widely accepted and known so the information can be exchanged as efficient as possible, without misunderstanding.

Aggregation vs Composition vs Association vs Direct Association

I am reviewing my knowledge in object-oriented programming. Under the relationship between classes topic, I have encountered some relationships which are a bit ambiguous to me.
I know dependency "uses-a" and inheritance "is-a" but I'm a bit unfamiliar with Aggregation, Composition, Association and Direct Association; also, which of them is "has-a" relationship. Some use Aggregation interchangeably with Association.
What is Direct Association? Also, what is Composition? In UML diagrams, the arrows that represents them are different. I would be really thankful if you could clear these things out for me.
Please note that there are different interpretations of the "association" definitions. My views below are heavily based on what you would read in Oracle Certification books and study guides.
Temporary association
A usage inside a method, its signature or as a return value. It's not really a reference to a specific object.
Example: I park my Car in a Garage.
Composition association
A so-called "STRONG relationship": The instantiation of the linked object is often hard
coded inside the constructor of the object. It cannot be set from
outside the object. (Composition cannot be a many-to-many
relationship.)
Example: A House is composed of Stones.
Direct association
This is a "WEAK relationships". The objects can live independent and there are usually setters or other ways to inject the dependent objects.
Example: A Car can have Passengers.
Aggregation association
Very similar to a Direct association. It's also a "WEAK relationship" with independent objects. However here the associated objects are a crucial part of the containing object.
Example: A Car should have Tires.
Note: Both Direct associations and Aggregation associations are often generalized as "Associations". The difference is rather subtle.
The whole point of OOP is that your code replicates real world objects, making your code readable and maintainable.
1. Association
Association is: Class A uses Class B.
Example:
Employee uses Bus/train Services for transportation.
Computer uses keyboard as input device
And in In UML diagram Association is denoted by a normal arrow head.
2. Aggregation
Class A contains Class B, or Class A has an instance of Class B.
An aggregation is used when life of object is independent of container object. But still container object owns the aggregated object.
So if we delete class A that doesn't mean that class B will also be deleted. E.g. none, or many, teachers can belong to one or many departments.
The relationship between Teachers and Departments is aggregation.
3. Composition
Class A owns Class B.
E.g. Body consists of Arm, Head, Legs. BankAccount consists of Balance and TransactionHistory.
So if class A gets deleted then also class B will get deleted.
Direct association has nothing in common with the other three. It does not belong to UML at all, it is the IBM requirements modelling term.
As for others,
Association A->B is a child of Dependency. Association means, that A (or its instance) has some easy way to get to instance of B. For example, a.x.y.b. Or by function, or by some local variable. Or by a direct reference or pointer, or something else (there are many languages in the world). As you see, there is no strict border between dependency and association.
One of attributes of Association is Aggregation, it can have values: None, shared (often incorrectly called aggregation), and composition.
If A (or instance) has some (or one) instances of B so, that destroying of association means the destroying of B instances, it is the composition.
If you or a tool author had decided, that some has-a relationship, that is weaker that composition, needs to be specially shown, you can use shared aggregation. Usually it is some collections of references to B in A.
There are some more interesting attributes of associations. Look here if you are interested.
An association between object types classifies relationships between objects of those types. For instance, the association Person-isEmployedBy-Enterprise may classify the relationships PeterMiller-isEmployedBy-IBM, SusanSmith-isEmployedBy-IBM and SarahAnderson-isEmployedBy-Google between the objects PeterMiller, SusanSmith and SarahAnderson of type Person as well as Google and IBM of type Enterprise. In other words, associations are relationship types with two or more object types participating in them. An association between two object types is called binary. While binary associations are more common, we may also have to deal with n-ary associations, where n is a natural number greater than 2. For instance, Person-isTreatedIn-Hospital-for-Disease is a 3-ary ("ternary") association between the object types Person, Hospital and Disease.
I guess that with "direct association" you mean a directional (or directed) association, which is an association (with a domain class and a range class) that represents a reference property in its domain class. Such a directional association has an "ownership dot" at its target end.
Please see this book chapter for more about associations.
And see my answer to this SO question for an explanation of aggregations and compositions.

Explanation of the UML arrows

I have recently been studying UML and drawing simple diagrams with ordinary plain arrows between classes, but I know it's not enough. There are plenty of other arrows: generalization, realisation and etc. which have meaning to the diagram reader.
Is there a nice resource which could explain each arrow (ordinary, plain, dotted, diamond-filled, diamond)?
It would be the best if it will have some code examples for them.
Here's some explanations from the Visual Studio 2015 docs:
UML Class Diagrams: Reference: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/visualstudio/visual-studio-2015/modeling/uml-class-diagrams-reference
5: Association: A relationship between the members of two classifiers.
5a: Aggregation: An association representing a shared ownership relationship. The
Aggregation property of the owner role is set to Shared.
5b: Composition: An association representing a whole-part relationship. The Aggregation
property of the owner role is set to Composite.
9: Generalization: The specific classifier inherits part of its definition from the general
classifier. The general classifier is at the arrow end of the connector. Attributes, associations, and
operations are inherited by the specific classifier. Use the Inheritance tool to create a
generalization between two classifiers.
13: Import: A relationship between packages, indicating that one
package includes all the definitions of another.
14: Dependency: The definition or implementation of the dependent classifier might change if
the classifier at the arrowhead end is changed.
15: Realization: The class implements the operations and attributes defined by the interface.
Use the Inheritance tool to create a realization between a class and an interface.
16: Realization: An alternative presentation of the same relationship. The label on the
lollipop symbol identifies the interface.
UML Class Diagrams: Guidelines: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/dd409416%28VS.140%29.aspx
Properties of an Association
Aggregation: This appears as a diamond shape at one end of the connector. You can use it to
indicate that instances at the aggregating role own or contain instances of the other.
Is Navigable: If true for only one role, an arrow appears in the navigable direction. You can use
this to indicate navigability of links and database relations in the software.
Generalization: Generalization means that the specializing or derived type inherits attributes,
operations, and associations of the general or base type. The general type appears at the arrowhead
end of the relationship.
Realization: Realization means that a class implements the attributes and operations specified by
the interface. The interface is at the arrow end of the connector.
Let me know if you have more questions.
I think these pictures are understandable.
A nice cheat sheet (http://loufranco.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/cheatsheet.pdf):
It covers:
Class Diagram
Sequence Diagram
Package Diagram
Object Diagram
Use Case Diagram
And provides a few samples.
My favourite UML "cheat sheet" is UML Distilled, by Martin Fowler. It's the only one of his books that I've read that I do recommend.
For quick reference along with clear concise examples, Allen Holub's UML Quick Reference is excellent:
http://www.holub.com/goodies/uml/
(There are quite a few specific examples of arrows and pointers in the first column of a table, with descriptions in the second column.)
The accepted answer being said, It is missing some explanations.
For example, what is the difference between a uni-directional and a bi-directional association? In the provided example, both do exist. ( Both '5's in the arrows)
If looking for a more complete answer and have more time, here is a thorough explanation.
A very easy to understand description is the documentation of yuml, with examples for class diagrams, use cases, and activities.
Aggregations and compositions are a little bit confusing. However, think like compositions are a stronger version of aggregation. What does that mean?
Let's take an example:
(Aggregation)
1. Take a classroom and students:
In this case, we try to analyze the relationship between them. A classroom has a relationship with students. That means classroom comprises of one or many students. Even if we remove the Classroom class, the Students class does not need to destroy, which means we can use Student class independently.
(Composition)
2. Take a look at pages and Book Class.
In this case, pages is a book, which means collections of pages makes the book. If we remove the book class, the whole Page class will be destroyed. That means we cannot use the class of the page independently.
If you are still unclear about this topic, watch out this short wonderful video, which has explained the aggregation more clearly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5ecYmyFZW0
If you are more of a MOOC person, one free course that I'd recommend that teaches you all the in and outs of most UML diagrams is this one from Udacity: https://www.udacity.com/course/software-architecture-design--ud821