Frontend UML deployment diagram
I'm working on my school project and I need to draw a UML deployment diagram. I haven't found any normal examples, so help me, please.
I have troubles with frontend application presentation -- should I specify that it is served on nodejs and how to, if yes?
What I have currently:
reactjs deployment uml frontend diagram
edited Nov 23 '18 at 16:54
Tobias Wilfert
7492920
asked Nov 23 '18 at 16:47
Daria PetersDaria Peters
112
add a comment |
I'm working on my school project and I need to draw a UML deployment diagram. I haven't found any normal examples, so help me, please.
I have troubles with frontend application presentation -- should I specify that it is served on nodejs and how to, if yes?
What I have currently:
reactjs deployment uml frontend diagram
edited Nov 23 '18 at 16:54
Tobias Wilfert
7492920
asked Nov 23 '18 at 16:47
Daria PetersDaria Peters
112
Looks good. I'm not familiar with React, but if it's something running inside the web client that's a fine representation.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 23 '18 at 17:41
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design. I'll draw something up an put in an answer.
– muszeo
Nov 23 '18 at 20:42
add a comment |
I'm working on my school project and I need to draw a UML deployment diagram. I haven't found any normal examples, so help me, please.
I have troubles with frontend application presentation -- should I specify that it is served on nodejs and how to, if yes?
What I have currently:
reactjs deployment uml frontend diagram
edited Nov 23 '18 at 16:54
Tobias Wilfert
7492920
asked Nov 23 '18 at 16:47
Daria PetersDaria Peters
112
I'm working on my school project and I need to draw a UML deployment diagram. I haven't found any normal examples, so help me, please.
I have troubles with frontend application presentation -- should I specify that it is served on nodejs and how to, if yes?
What I have currently:
reactjs deployment uml frontend diagram
reactjs deployment uml frontend diagram
edited Nov 23 '18 at 16:54
Tobias Wilfert
7492920
asked Nov 23 '18 at 16:47
Daria PetersDaria Peters
112
edited Nov 23 '18 at 16:54
Tobias Wilfert
7492920
asked Nov 23 '18 at 16:47
Daria PetersDaria Peters
112
edited Nov 23 '18 at 16:54
Tobias Wilfert
7492920
edited Nov 23 '18 at 16:54
Tobias Wilfert
7492920
edited Nov 23 '18 at 16:54
Tobias Wilfert
7492920
7492920
asked Nov 23 '18 at 16:47
Daria PetersDaria Peters
112
asked Nov 23 '18 at 16:47
Daria PetersDaria Peters
112
asked Nov 23 '18 at 16:47
Daria PetersDaria Peters
112
112
Looks good. I'm not familiar with React, but if it's something running inside the web client that's a fine representation.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 23 '18 at 17:41
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design. I'll draw something up an put in an answer.
– muszeo
Nov 23 '18 at 20:42
add a comment |
Looks good. I'm not familiar with React, but if it's something running inside the web client that's a fine representation.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 23 '18 at 17:41
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design. I'll draw something up an put in an answer.
– muszeo
Nov 23 '18 at 20:42
Looks good. I'm not familiar with React, but if it's something running inside the web client that's a fine representation.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 23 '18 at 17:41
Looks good. I'm not familiar with React, but if it's something running inside the web client that's a fine representation.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 23 '18 at 17:41
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design. I'll draw something up an put in an answer.
– muszeo
Nov 23 '18 at 20:42
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design. I'll draw something up an put in an answer.
– muszeo
Nov 23 '18 at 20:42
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design.
I've put together an example. You'll have to excuse it though -- the syntax of the instances needs underlines and I'm not sure why that's not displaying. But hopefully you get the picture (no pun intended). [Edit -- fixed that!].
Regarding your query about the NodeJs part of this. That would be a separate node, with a NodeJS component on it. The Web Client is the browser machine, or possibly the browser itself if you want to argue that, which is where your JS is executing. You might want to go in to more detail and add these for clarity.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 21:07
muszeomuszeo
1,398310
Probably a tool issue. Enterprise Architect shows it correctly for the node but also without underline in the component :-/ UML 2.5 para. 9.8.4 is quite explicit about the notation. So bugs wherever you look.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 24 '18 at 11:39
It is indeed! In this case I'm to blame, as it's my own tool LOL! Nonetheless, bug fixed. This did give me recourse to check if the 2.5 notation for components had changed, which it hasn't, apart from that the stereotype <<component>> is mandatory (been like that since 2.0). So another bug-ette there. It's bugs everywhere :-/.
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 0:39
Not sure about the stereotype though. IIRC you can replace them with an icon. Too late to look it up...
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 1:21
Found it on p. 208 in 11.6.4: If the icon symbol is shown, the keyword «component» may be hidden.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 11:13
Ah well done Thomas! Thanks for that!
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 17:49
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53450381%2ffrontend-uml-deployment-diagram%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design.
I've put together an example. You'll have to excuse it though -- the syntax of the instances needs underlines and I'm not sure why that's not displaying. But hopefully you get the picture (no pun intended). [Edit -- fixed that!].
Regarding your query about the NodeJs part of this. That would be a separate node, with a NodeJS component on it. The Web Client is the browser machine, or possibly the browser itself if you want to argue that, which is where your JS is executing. You might want to go in to more detail and add these for clarity.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 21:07
muszeomuszeo
1,398310
Probably a tool issue. Enterprise Architect shows it correctly for the node but also without underline in the component :-/ UML 2.5 para. 9.8.4 is quite explicit about the notation. So bugs wherever you look.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 24 '18 at 11:39
It is indeed! In this case I'm to blame, as it's my own tool LOL! Nonetheless, bug fixed. This did give me recourse to check if the 2.5 notation for components had changed, which it hasn't, apart from that the stereotype <<component>> is mandatory (been like that since 2.0). So another bug-ette there. It's bugs everywhere :-/.
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 0:39
Not sure about the stereotype though. IIRC you can replace them with an icon. Too late to look it up...
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 1:21
Found it on p. 208 in 11.6.4: If the icon symbol is shown, the keyword «component» may be hidden.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 11:13
Ah well done Thomas! Thanks for that!
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 17:49
add a comment |
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design.
I've put together an example. You'll have to excuse it though -- the syntax of the instances needs underlines and I'm not sure why that's not displaying. But hopefully you get the picture (no pun intended). [Edit -- fixed that!].
Regarding your query about the NodeJs part of this. That would be a separate node, with a NodeJS component on it. The Web Client is the browser machine, or possibly the browser itself if you want to argue that, which is where your JS is executing. You might want to go in to more detail and add these for clarity.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 21:07
muszeomuszeo
1,398310
Probably a tool issue. Enterprise Architect shows it correctly for the node but also without underline in the component :-/ UML 2.5 para. 9.8.4 is quite explicit about the notation. So bugs wherever you look.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 24 '18 at 11:39
It is indeed! In this case I'm to blame, as it's my own tool LOL! Nonetheless, bug fixed. This did give me recourse to check if the 2.5 notation for components had changed, which it hasn't, apart from that the stereotype <<component>> is mandatory (been like that since 2.0). So another bug-ette there. It's bugs everywhere :-/.
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 0:39
Not sure about the stereotype though. IIRC you can replace them with an icon. Too late to look it up...
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 1:21
Found it on p. 208 in 11.6.4: If the icon symbol is shown, the keyword «component» may be hidden.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 11:13
Ah well done Thomas! Thanks for that!
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 17:49
add a comment |
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design.
I've put together an example. You'll have to excuse it though -- the syntax of the instances needs underlines and I'm not sure why that's not displaying. But hopefully you get the picture (no pun intended). [Edit -- fixed that!].
Regarding your query about the NodeJs part of this. That would be a separate node, with a NodeJS component on it. The Web Client is the browser machine, or possibly the browser itself if you want to argue that, which is where your JS is executing. You might want to go in to more detail and add these for clarity.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 21:07
muszeomuszeo
1,398310
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design.
I've put together an example. You'll have to excuse it though -- the syntax of the instances needs underlines and I'm not sure why that's not displaying. But hopefully you get the picture (no pun intended). [Edit -- fixed that!].
Regarding your query about the NodeJs part of this. That would be a separate node, with a NodeJS component on it. The Web Client is the browser machine, or possibly the browser itself if you want to argue that, which is where your JS is executing. You might want to go in to more detail and add these for clarity.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 21:07
muszeomuszeo
1,398310
edited Nov 25 '18 at 0:24
answered Nov 23 '18 at 21:07
muszeomuszeo
1,398310
answered Nov 23 '18 at 21:07
muszeomuszeo
1,398310
answered Nov 23 '18 at 21:07
muszeomuszeo
1,398310
1,398310
Probably a tool issue. Enterprise Architect shows it correctly for the node but also without underline in the component :-/ UML 2.5 para. 9.8.4 is quite explicit about the notation. So bugs wherever you look.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 24 '18 at 11:39
It is indeed! In this case I'm to blame, as it's my own tool LOL! Nonetheless, bug fixed. This did give me recourse to check if the 2.5 notation for components had changed, which it hasn't, apart from that the stereotype <<component>> is mandatory (been like that since 2.0). So another bug-ette there. It's bugs everywhere :-/.
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 0:39
Not sure about the stereotype though. IIRC you can replace them with an icon. Too late to look it up...
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 1:21
Found it on p. 208 in 11.6.4: If the icon symbol is shown, the keyword «component» may be hidden.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 11:13
Ah well done Thomas! Thanks for that!
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 17:49
add a comment |
Probably a tool issue. Enterprise Architect shows it correctly for the node but also without underline in the component :-/ UML 2.5 para. 9.8.4 is quite explicit about the notation. So bugs wherever you look.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 24 '18 at 11:39
It is indeed! In this case I'm to blame, as it's my own tool LOL! Nonetheless, bug fixed. This did give me recourse to check if the 2.5 notation for components had changed, which it hasn't, apart from that the stereotype <<component>> is mandatory (been like that since 2.0). So another bug-ette there. It's bugs everywhere :-/.
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 0:39
Not sure about the stereotype though. IIRC you can replace them with an icon. Too late to look it up...
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 1:21
Found it on p. 208 in 11.6.4: If the icon symbol is shown, the keyword «component» may be hidden.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 11:13
Ah well done Thomas! Thanks for that!
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 17:49
Probably a tool issue. Enterprise Architect shows it correctly for the node but also without underline in the component :-/ UML 2.5 para. 9.8.4 is quite explicit about the notation. So bugs wherever you look.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 24 '18 at 11:39
Probably a tool issue. Enterprise Architect shows it correctly for the node but also without underline in the component :-/ UML 2.5 para. 9.8.4 is quite explicit about the notation. So bugs wherever you look.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 24 '18 at 11:39
It is indeed! In this case I'm to blame, as it's my own tool LOL! Nonetheless, bug fixed. This did give me recourse to check if the 2.5 notation for components had changed, which it hasn't, apart from that the stereotype <<component>> is mandatory (been like that since 2.0). So another bug-ette there. It's bugs everywhere :-/.
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 0:39
It is indeed! In this case I'm to blame, as it's my own tool LOL! Nonetheless, bug fixed. This did give me recourse to check if the 2.5 notation for components had changed, which it hasn't, apart from that the stereotype <<component>> is mandatory (been like that since 2.0). So another bug-ette there. It's bugs everywhere :-/.
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 0:39
Not sure about the stereotype though. IIRC you can replace them with an icon. Too late to look it up...
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 1:21
Not sure about the stereotype though. IIRC you can replace them with an icon. Too late to look it up...
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 1:21
Found it on p. 208 in 11.6.4: If the icon symbol is shown, the keyword «component» may be hidden.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 11:13
Found it on p. 208 in 11.6.4: If the icon symbol is shown, the keyword «component» may be hidden.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 25 '18 at 11:13
Ah well done Thomas! Thanks for that!
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 17:49
Ah well done Thomas! Thanks for that!
– muszeo
Nov 25 '18 at 17:49
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53450381%2ffrontend-uml-deployment-diagram%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Looks good. I'm not familiar with React, but if it's something running inside the web client that's a fine representation.
– Thomas Kilian
Nov 23 '18 at 17:41
My only comment would be that the Node representation is an instance (the underline under the node type name) whereas the component is a classifier (no underline in the name). You might want to make the component an instance too, if you are modelling an actual deployment, or make the node a type if you are modelling a logical deployment design. I'll draw something up an put in an answer.
– muszeo
Nov 23 '18 at 20:42