IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Low-tech approach
Start [link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CrcCard|here]. Then start going through [link|http://www.google.com/search?q=crc%2bsession%2bsite%3ac2.com|this]. In particular [link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OnePieceOfPaper|this] and [link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?UmlDoesntWork|this] and [link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HotDraw|this].
===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Re: Low-tech approach
I've used (or have tried to use) ArgoUML, but always seem to fall back on some combination of a whiteboard, 4x6 cards, some decent markers and pens, a camera, a scanner, and a wiki.
New UML's good for docs
But if you've got everything and the kitchen sink in your diagram (ie- all 1500 classes) then you're not using it properly.

You've got to approach something like that in a layered perspective. For example, a client server application's top level uml diagram should have two or maybe three things on it; a client and the server, with the calls happening between them, and perhaps the actual network between them. Then, you can get the top level diagram for each of those two subsystems, keeping it simple throughout, breaking things down into subsystems as needed. You might also want to create a diagram representing the actual network between them if you have to deal with the particularities of the infrastructure architecture for your app, so that if you need to detail failover options at the network level you can do it in that specific diagram.

Having it all in one diagram might make for a neat pic, but it's not very useful. The point of it is to help communicate the architecture of the application to other people, and a spaghetti diagram isn't going to do a very good job of that.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New UML is good at showing you where you screwed up
In my experience, if the design cannot be expressed as a neat simple diagram, I am doing something wrong.
--


"Consider a perfectly spherical cow, radiating milk isotropically."

-- [link|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002008.html|Language Log]

New I can see how that goes
I have to admit, I hadn't thought of it that way, but I can see why it would be good at showing those up.

Related to the relative levels of experience betwixt you and I, methinks.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
     Open Source modeling tools. - (mmoffitt) - (25)
         Re: Open Source modeling tools. - (systems)
         Re: Open Source modeling tools. - (pwhysall) - (20)
             Heh. That's my preference. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                 So, use those - (jake123) - (18)
                     Max(cost): buy a new scanner/printer - (FuManChu) - (17)
                         I like it:) -NT - (jake123)
                         Re: Max(cost): buy a new scanner/printer - (systems) - (15)
                             I'd suggest using uml - (jake123) - (10)
                                 Re: I'd suggest using uml - (systems) - (9)
                                     What exactly do you mean by "model" here? -NT - (Arkadiy) - (7)
                                         Re: What exactly do you mean by "model" here? - (systems) - (6)
                                             If you want to have a diagram, - (Arkadiy)
                                             Low-tech approach - (drewk) - (4)
                                                 Re: Low-tech approach - (dws) - (3)
                                                     UML's good for docs - (jake123) - (2)
                                                         UML is good at showing you where you screwed up - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                                             I can see how that goes - (jake123)
                                     I'm not sure - (jake123)
                             Models are only as good as their specs - (admin)
                             Holy... - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                 Re: Holy... - (systems)
                                 I don't KNOW it was humor - (broomberg)
         I wrote my own - (tuberculosis) - (2)
             Object Role Modeling - (systems) - (1)
                 Same old same old - (tuberculosis)

Switch view to kaleidoscopic.
59 ms