需要在我们的UML类图中添加Runnable接口吗?

huangapple go评论87阅读模式
英文:

Do we need to add interface Runnable in our UML class diagram?

问题

我已经用套接字编程创建了一个简单的FlappyBird克隆游戏,现在我正在做UML图。我的类实现了Runnable接口。

像这样:

static class Flappy implements Runnable{....}

和:

public class Client extends Application implements Runnable{.....}

需要在我们的UML类图中添加Runnable接口吗?

英文:

I have created a simple FlappyBird clone game with socket programming and now I am doing the UML diagram.
My classes implements Runnable

Like:

static class Flappy implements Runnable{....}

and:

public class Client extends Application implements Runnable{.....}

需要在我们的UML类图中添加Runnable接口吗?

答案1

得分: 3

虽然用户7之前接受的回答本身是正确的,但也存在一些"情况有所不同"。如果您为机器(代码生成器)或编码人员创建UML图,您将不得不添加它以使其完整。如果是为了普通(人类)理解,您可以省略这些细节。

顺便提一下:您的箭头是错误的。那些是扩展点(仅用于配置文件定义),不是实现关系。实现关系有一个开放的三角形和一个虚线。

英文:

Though the (formerly) accepted answer by user7 is right per se, there's also a "it depends". If you create your UML for a machine (a code generator) or a coding monkey you will have to add it in order to make it complete. If it's for a common (human) understanding you can omit those details.

As a side note: your arrows are wrong. Those are extensions (used only in profile definitions), not realizations. A realization has an open triangle and a dashed line.

答案2

得分: 3

UML是方法论无关的。所以,一切都取决于你的类图目的

  • 如果它是分析或领域模型,则Runnable不相关(正如其他答案所指出的)
  • 如果它是设计模型,即解释解决方案如何工作的模型,那么Runnable对于你的设计有多相关就取决于你:
    • 如果你的解决方案中没有任何部分需要一个Runnable,那么你不需要显示它。
    • 如果一个类期望使用Runnable或者在更大范围的组件设计中期望该类提供这个接口,那么你应该显示它。
  • 如果它是实现模型,即旨在精确记录解决方案如何实现的模型,那么应该记录Runnable。请注意,使用这种详细的实现模型对学校工作来说是不错的选择,但对于现实世界的项目来说并不是一个有趣的选项,因为它很难维护,并且在某种程度上与代码有些冗余,除非你有可以为你生成图表的逆向工程工具。

如果你决定显示这种关系,你将需要重新调整你的图形布局:

  • 箭头头必须替换为泛化的空白三角形。纯箭头头是模糊的,可能会误导读者认为它是一个可导航的关联(原则上用开放的箭头头表示,但仍然是箭头头)

  • 但由于Runnable是一个接口,而你的类是implement它而不是extend它,所以你应该使用虚线来表示它是接口的实现(这是一种依赖关系,具有与继承/泛化略有不同的含义)。

英文:

UML is methodology agnostic. So, it all depends on the purpose of your class diagram:

  • If it is an analysis or a domain model, the Runnable is not relevant (as the other answer rightly pointed out)
  • If it is a design model, i.e. a model that explains how your solution works, it depends how relevant Runnable is for your design:
    • if nothing in your solution requires a Runnable, you don’t need to show it.
    • if one class expects to use a Runnable or if the class is expected to provide this interface in the larger view of the component design, then you should show it.
  • If it is an implementation model, i.e a model that aims to document precisely how your solution is implemented, the Runnable should be documented. Be aware that the use of such detailed implementation models is good for school-work but is not an interesting option for real world projects because it’s difficult to maintain and somewhat redundant with the code, unless you have reverse-engineering tools that can generate the diagram for you.

If you decide to show the relation, you’ll have to rework your graphical layout:

  • the arrow head must be replaced with the blank triangle of generalization. A plain arrow head is ambiguous and could mislead the reader to think that it’s a navigable association (in principle shown with an open arrow head, but an arrow head nevertheless)

  • but since Runnable is an interface, and your classes implement it and do not extend it, you should use a dashed line to show that it’s the realization of an interface (which is a dependency, with a slightly different meaning that the inheritance/generalization).

huangapple
  • 本文由 发表于 2020年8月2日 15:45:16
  • 转载请务必保留本文链接:https://go.coder-hub.com/63213600.html
匿名

发表评论

匿名网友

:?: :razz: :sad: :evil: :!: :smile: :oops: :grin: :eek: :shock: :???: :cool: :lol: :mad: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :idea: :arrow: :neutral: :cry: :mrgreen:

确定