Use an example model section You do not have a comprehensive description of the system you build, and each business use case and use case have no detailed description other than the name. Note: Every node of the ROSE model has a note information can be entered, here you need to add a lot of descriptive information that helps you work in the future. Regarding the importance of this problem, I told when I was in class. I don't know if you still remember. Your use case model draws less, may be not enough to understand at the time, but you need to pay more attention. At the same time, you should enter some information. Your use case is a lot of subcontract, but there is only a few cases below each package, and the examples in each package are not drawn, so this is also a bigger problem, I hope you can A lot of attention in the future work. Your understanding is indeed less right. The business use case model consists of a complete system-implemented business layer performance, not the association of the association. So, there is also a similar problem with your business case. You carefully refer to the example of me to everyone, think about what I tell when I am in class. Business use cases and use cases are completely complete, but they do not see business case diagrams and examples. In the case of the example, you do not draw business use cases and business examples, have you considered this content? However, there is no need to draw, you must remember that there is such a process to help you and users get business needs. In your case, all the Comment of all use cases is not filled out, and the necessary content description is required, which also helps you organize your own ideas, there is a more complete grasp of the system. There is a direct relationship between the borrowers and the library administrator, have you considered this relationship should be drawn like this? I understand that you want to express the interaction between borrowers and book administrators, but this interaction process should be an embodiment of a borrowing process. It is a real business process, you should sort it into one Use case, through business processes, implement fully electronic borrowing process, isn't it? In your case, there are some Extend relationships directly from actor to the use case. We should pay attention to a little, and the actor here is not an external system, but a person, he and the use cases are impossible to have any such relationships. Your case diagram is placed in the Logical View and should be placed in the USE CASE VIEW. Your Use Case Diagram is not associated with the actual case map. That is, from the basic chart of the entire model, you cannot directly enter your full USE CASE DIAGRAM one step. Each of your USE Case has not filled in the corresponding Comment, which in the future will feel inconvenient. Fill in these content helps you further understand the business implementation corresponding to USE CASE. In Use Case, it is generally not necessary to divide the Actor, at least in this system, because the object you develop is your business usage instead of your external system (actor). In addition, your Actor package does not play a role, open this package, there is no content. In the case of the example, you did not make a subcontracting, for example, the business case map You didn't collect it as a whole. When others saw your model, he would feel that I think I am so troublesome when I am attending class. ,Too complicated. It is possible that there is a foundation of psychology to refuse to understand your content, once the user has this kind of psychology, they will always refuse anything you give him. This must be careful. In fact, anyone will produce this fearfulness.
Inside the use case realize model in the use case view, the most critical is the implementation of the implementation of the business case, and the implementation of the package to the package is not very critical, because it is possible to exist that the business case is drawn in the same package, and The phenomenon is separated in the use case. In your implementation view, the only thing that is not drawn is a direct implementation of the use case and business use case. I hope you can pay more in the future. The use case map in the use case model in the use case figure is not drawn, just the existence of use case. caution. Since the Actor of this system can only be a person, in the actual process, people can only pass the methods in the class through some operations, rather than people directly call classes. So, the call of your method should be modified into a MESSAGE TO SELF to represent, the person to the method or: "// Select play card" description method. Unless the actor in your system is an external system, this time, it is possible to call directly through the interface. The use case drawing is very complete. Give you a wake up (not comments and questions): If you do a project in mainland China, no matter how good your English is, it is best to use Chinese in the business case. That is to say, in any country development system, The business example is written in the first language of the country, so that the best effect can be achieved to understand the user. Your case is not drawn, only business use cases, this shows that your demand part has not been done. The analysis model is not started from the action starting from the Actor, and the first action in your figure comes from the ReadGameData method for the EntityAlysis class. This is not logical. To know that any classes belong to passive trigger, there is no pre-condition that they cannot run automatically. Therefore, the origin of the action must be derived from the external action. This is a look at the example I have given you in teaching courseware. In your case, most of the common Comment is not filled out, although the topic you choose is more familiar, but the necessary content descriptions still need, this description also helps you organize your own ideas, There is a more complete grasp of the system. Alternatively, you can place these instructions in Comment instead of your Note you are now placed. There is no Actor's emergence in business cases, so how do you explain these services to users? Business must have a relationship with the actor to bring benefits to the actor. Otherwise, the Actor in the example is impossible to exist. Note: Everything in the example is extracted from the business case. All content in Use Case View You are drawn, but there is no correctness to associate them, that is, from the startup diagram that cannot always index all relevant views. In your homework, I only saw the business case, but there is no example of the actual system implementation. In your usecaseview, you have made more detailed descriptions for all the usage, but there is no description for the Actor. Note: The confirmation of the Actor is also very important, I hope you can consider the rationality of the Actor. In addition to other actors, there is an actor that you didn't fill in the comment, that is, the user, in addition to the students and teachers, the user is doing, then you need to describe it. You have made a mistake I mentioned in the class: Place the business case and the use case on the same picture, but did not distinguish them. It is recommended that you recall the content that I will pass in my class. All the cases in your business case diagram are not business use cases. I don't know if you noticed it? Be sure to pay attention to the details. Otherwise, it is prone to big problems.
There are still some cases in the business case diagram, and it is estimated that you may not say that they are all set to Business Use Case. The analysis model returns the value of the value does not use Return Message, and it is still using Object Message. I don't remember that it is not the low version of the version. So, if I remember, you will bear more. Analysis model timing chart is not placed under Analysis Model. Your annotation method is "//" instead of "//" indication I asked. Please note this. The way your analysis model and the design model are different, and there is no in-depth analysis of layers in a unified manner and result. However, this is no wonder that our course is too short, there is no time to give you more detailed explanation. This can only learn more in the future. Your analysis class has a border class only with the entity class. In this way, your process control and jump can only be implemented in the entity class or interface class, this way will confuse business layer and data and performance. The logical relationship between layers. I hope that you can consider it, especially in actual work, what is the advantages of different ways. In addition, most of the analysis model you have directly added the login request and select the function. Is this actions that should be merged? Placed in a login management, other timings can not be much simpler? The analysis model is not placed under the Analysis Model in accordance with my requirements and is still placed under Use Case View. Analysis model timing chart does not submit a subcontracting according to my requirements, because of the time relationship, the business process I don't have much careful study. In this model, I didn't see your analysis model, but from the last job you sent, I saw your analysis model timing chart, there is a lot of things I have already told in the class, you carefully Recall some of my common problems I mentioned in the class, I will modify your model again. I have not found it in your analysis model. There is nothing in the job that you sent to me before. Are you placed directly into the design model? You don't distinguish between analytical models and design models, this is the biggest problem in your model, which will confusing the relationship between the ideographic design and detailed design. You don't have a good way to draw an analysis model according to what I said, and then draw the design model. The reason you have not exported is because you don't have a language environment before you create a class, you can look at the default language of your model is still Analysis Language. So you can't deal the code. Your analysis model is not placed in a directory of the unified analysis model, which seems to be scattered; the analysis of the business stream in the middle of the model, which requires special attention. The timing diagram does not have a phenomenon that the jump is returned, and the actual logic / implementation process is not like this. Partial charts have not been returned. You selected the development language as Java before developing analysis models, rather than regulating the development language before designing model class, so you will display the properties interface of Java mode in your analysis model class. This is a violation of conventional. The reason I said when I was in class, you recall themselves. I hope to pay more attention to future learning and work. Your analysis model and design model are not separated. The column flow of the pattern timing chart is too messy, and should be adjusted. Moreover, partial returns are not done from the extension line of its method. You don't have a picture of business case, this is nothing to do, but you must be familiar with understanding the differences and use of business use cases and use cases. The method in your analysis model does not use the "//" of my request. If you have selected the specific language at this time, then these will directly form a method of classes, so this is an error.
In the analysis model, you have an actor to class method call, such a direct call is a problem, pay attention to: Since the Actor's actor can only be a person, people can only pass some operations Method, rather than people directly call classes. So, the call of your method should be modified into a MESSAGE TO SELF to represent, the person to the method or: "// Select play card" description method. Unless the actor in your system is an external system, this time, it is possible to call directly through the interface. There is a return of the class in the analysis model, which is impossible in the actual process. Do not simplify these processes, or should return to the first level. You have not submitted processing in the analysis model, which will have some bad consequences, you can consider it first. The method of analyzing the model timing map is recommended to use a full Chinese description. Your current practice is a transition analysis, which affects the design and parsing of problems, which is not conducive to multiplayer, which is not conducive to others understand your business. description. You have no drawing analysis model. If you don't hear the class, I hope that you can take a good look at the teaching courseware I give you, and there is an example I have given you. There is a complete analysis model instance. I know that you want to draw a design model, but so, I can't see your analysis model. That is, you don't place the analysis model in the position where you should place it. Please go back and look at the PPT I gave you lectures. Consider why I recommend this. In the analysis model timing diagram, some process is broken, and some methods have not returned. Consider whether such problems may occur during the actual business process. In the analysis model, "//" is a commentary indication, which is a description of this symbol, which should not form a method on the analysis class. You have constructed a lot of object entities, but have you considered how object entity is going to return? Because in the object entity, it is generally no way information. In OO's idea, it is generally necessary to distinguish between objects and operational objects, so it is reasonable. You are thinking about whether you need to add some classes. You don't have the return content of the analysis model timing chart, consider how to draw, this is a very important point. I didn't find your analysis model timing chart, but this is not a critical, however, you should understand his importance. Especially in a step-by-step process, how should developers enter the final design results. The analysis class should be separated from the design class. You are now a way that is less accurate. The design model is in the design model, and all your methods are not directly built from the timing chart, because your method has added "//" in front of your method; some return still uses Object Message, which marks the back The class has a call relationship for the previous class, not a simple return relationship; for multiple return values, most of the use of the Java is List or ArrayList, or Object Array, but the use of the object array is not very convenient. Of course, how is it used, or has a relationship with people's habits. I can't ask for it. It is necessary to specify when designing. When setting an array type, your return value is read from the object of the object you build. At this time, you can't choose directly from the Java common type, you need to choose from your constructed type. You didn't draw design model timing charts, directly exported. Note that the description in the analysis model timing is not directly used as the design model because the levels of the two are different. Digital depth is different.
At the class of the class, you have not added a similar description text, which will affect what you have given something to others. For specific reasons, I have been speaking when I was class, and I will no longer have it. The return value of the method Checkmsg () in your class is set to void, you consider whether it is appropriate. Are you a reference call or a transmission value call? Is it possible to implement this data verification? Generally speaking, the data check needs to return Boolean or int for indicia which data appears. Your design class is not too fine, it should be said that it is good (of course, I don't have time to scrutinize your design model). Your analysis model and design model span is too big, this is what you need to think about a problem. This is more important. The design is the details of the analysis, this step is very important, so you still need more learning and practice. You haven't appreciated the J2EE's pattern on the J2EE mentioned later, but this can't blame you, after all, you are basically the first time you have exposed this. I know, you want to form a COM. ...... The form of a class package, so you re-build a COM. In fact, it is actually a point I have not said, but it is a bit too tight, and there is no way. Generally speaking, in the actual project, we don't directly use Design Model as the package, straight It will be defined as COM to facilitate formation of COM. Package name. Use an example name / sub-package name / class name. I didn't see the existence of timing charts in the design model, so I didn't know how the properties and methods of your class were determined? You have no settings when you create a class, and your language in your entire process is still Analysis Language. You directly draw the classes and methods directly in the design model, all the contents are not attribute, your thinking method is still a complete process of process, no ideology, of course, of course, maybe Because you contact this idea is still relatively short, you can't really realize the role of this idea. I hope that you can strengthen our exercise and practice in the future. There are more problems in the design model. You have not developed design model timing, adding the class's properties and methods, plus you did not perform a full syntax check, or have a syntax check, there is no inspection, because In a variety of methods in many classes, there is no input, which is not allowed in the method, which is a serious design inadequate design. I hope you can pay more in the future. The process of your design model drawn does not use the idea of this class to analyze the idea. Have time, I hope that you can use this idea to analyze. In your model, use the database directly as an actor. However, have you noticed that in fact, you still need to analyze the Actor during business analysis, in the development process, you still handle this database as an object, because you need to develop some methods on it. Come. So, in this case, you can't use the database as an actor, but can only be processed as an object. Moreover, your database here should actually be a class that operates the database to get data. Some methods of some classes in your design model must have input, if no input parameters, only output, how should this method check the external information? In the design model, you have not directly obtained the prototype foundation of the design model from the analysis model, but it is completely redrawn. In this way, I don't recommend it. Let's take a look at the teaching plan, the drawing process of the design model.
In the design model, you have an actor to class method to call, such direct calls are problematic, pay attention to: Since the Actor of this system can only be a person, people can only pass some operations Method, rather than people directly call classes. So, the call of your method should be modified into a MESSAGE TO SELF to represent, the person to the method or: "// Select play card" description method. Unless the actor in your system is an external system, this time, it is possible to call directly through the interface. Your GTLoginentity class does not need to be defined as the business entry type, should be modified to: Entity. The information such as return value in the class is also required to indicate its meaning. The design model is not completed, and many of the "//" symbols, this may be that you misunderstand the meaning of my homework, and I can't blame you. Here is just reminding you, at least a complete timing diagram, not this also comment method. You did not use the idea of OO to learn in this class to conduct systematic analysis. Of course, you may be too short, you can't blame you, just hope that you can get more in the future work. Trying to use this idea to analyze these issues. Remember: Use of tools as long as they are skilled, but the method of the method must be proficient. Mastering the method, what tools are not useful. There is a problem when you return to the return of the method, and the return should not use the name of the method to mark the name. It should actually indicate what is the return: object, list, or which standard type ... Only in this is that you consider intact, it is the point you really need to do in your design. For design models, all of its classes, methods, properties should be completed, including Comment, otherwise your design is actually not completed. It is also impossible to take it out. The design model timing chart is not developed, still maintaining the pattern of the model timing chart; you have no language in the design model, and your development language is still Analysis Language, which is unable to export. You export the code, do you give me a wrong model file? Because your Analysis Model should have a Control package. Design model timing charts are still with "//" symbols. When doing design model development, there is a need to remove the annotation symbol "//" other in addition to return information and actor to border class. The parameters and return values of the method in the design model are not filled in the comments. The name of your design class is still a Chinese name. Under normal circumstances, it is not recommended to use this. However, this is not wrong. You did not develop a design model timing map, maybe you didn't pay attention to the process of designing the design model I have drawn. You go to see the relevant content in my teaching courseware. In your hospital project, I didn't see the actual design model, I don't know how you change from business processes in your model. Note that this is critical. Otherwise, the implementation of the model development process has become an empty talk. Your somewhat has no output, check it. Is this possible? What is the role of this class? Some problems in your design model part have some problems that do not meet the structure of normal conditions. However, this part of the content because there is not much more telling, so, you can't be counted as your mistake. There is a problem with each way in your design model timing. You still use Chinese plus English to describe, pay attention: This time should be a complete method to associate, refer to the example in my teaching courseware. Code Export You are not to build the related properties and methods of the class through the timing chart.
