Re: What exactly do you mean by "model" here?

Post #201,600 by systems 4/1/05 5:51:29 PM 4/1/05 5:51:59 PM Reply	Re: What exactly do you mean by "model" here? A model is an abstract representation of a system or a solution, being abstract it hides most or all the irelevant details For most ppl, a model = a diagram I was told, but I have no clue how, that u can express a model in other ways. But mainly i just had diagrams in mind, when i was speaking. a set of diagram notations that complement each other, is also usually refered to as a modeling language, like UML, or ORM or EERD Again I wanna exploit the moment, to say how much I like ORM [link\|http://www.orm.net\|http://www.orm.net] Edited by systems April 1, 2005, 05:51:59 PM EST Expand All History
Post #201,604 by Arkadiy 4/1/05 6:13:09 PM Reply	If you want to have a diagram, XML defeats the whole purpose - to engage the space-oriented part of your brain. If you don't care for diagrams, I'd use pseudocode. I fail to see how XML is appropriate in Modeling in your sense at all. -- "Consider a perfectly spherical cow, radiating milk isotropically." -- [link\|http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002008.html\|Language Log]
Post #201,618 by drewk 4/1/05 11:14:39 PM Reply	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]
Post #201,623 by dws 4/2/05 12:07:15 AM Reply	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.
Post #201,658 by jake123 4/2/05 2:43:31 PM Reply	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-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #201,825 by Arkadiy 4/4/05 11:50:29 AM Reply	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]
Post #201,874 by jake123 4/4/05 4:43:52 PM Reply	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-------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to IWETHEY!