问题描述
在以获取受支持的原型（如UML 2.1）。
您可以将MyClass-MyException建模为a简单的二进制关联而不是依赖关系，但它实际上在语义上不成立；它们之间没有系统的关系。与工厂创建实例的情况类似。关于依赖关系，有一篇很好的文章，如果您需要更多信息。
如果您觉得有用，则不会。 UML是一种工具：在&如何帮助您，请忽略它没有帮助的地方。恰当的例子： MyClass 不会抛出任何异常， MyClass 的一个或多个方法会抛出异常。因此，依赖关系是一种抽象。但是只要：
- 您-以及需要读取模型的其他人-都可以理解，并且
- 这很有用
然后它不是滥用，而是使用。
hth。
Reading here, it seems modelling a custom exception class using a generalisation is common place. What it doesn't mention is how I can model an association with a class that could potentially throw the custom exception. Note, I'm not asking how to model the sequence behaviour when it comes to raising the exception; I'm specifically wanting to model the association. Or is this a misuse of the class diagram?
Probably like this:
Note that <<throws>> isn't a standard UML stereotype. There's nothing wrong with that - it's perfectly fine to define your own. If you want to stick to standards though, <<create>> is probably the closest. (See here for list of supported stereotypes as at UML 2.1).
You could model MyClass-MyException as a simple binary association rather than a dependency but it doesn't really hold semantically; there's no systematic relationship among them. Similar to the case where a Factory creates instances. There's a good article on Dependency relationships here if you need more info.
Not if you find it useful. UML is a tool: use it where & how it helps, ignore it where it doesn't. Case in point: pedantically, MyClass doesn't throw any exceptions, one or more methods of MyClass throws the Exception. So the dependency is an abstraction. However as long as:
- you - and whomever else needs to read the model - understands that, and
- it's useful
then it's not misuse, it's use.
hth.
这篇关于如何在类图中为自定义异常关联建模？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！