I have an existing suite of SOA-connected applications (mixture of JavaEE, PHP and .Net) for which I need to provide an overall deployment model or architectural diagram.
I have found an example of a UML diagram for J2EE Application Deployment which is attractive because it's at just about the right level of detail (apps, containers, some component manifestation) for my current diagramming requirements.
I may even aggregate those at a higher level using something like the same author's Application Clustering Example.
I'm confident that I can jump right in at the component level or even at the artifact level and build my diagram(s) from there.
However, I also design specific Java components and would like to begin providing overall class diagrams to the development team when this current "architectural" exercise is complete. I expect this involves reverse engineering the Java code and starting from there.
My question is: what is my best strategy for meeting my current deployment and future component modeling needs?
Can I expect to back-fill the current artifacts I create now (eg. WAR or JAR file) with reverse-engineered components later?
Should I reverse engineer now, create the artifacts from the "bottom up", ignore most of the components, then update the reverse-engineered code later when it's time for component modelling? I would still require only logical (i.e. not backed by code) components for the .Net and PHP pieces since they're not my domain.
Should I make & keep my deployment artifacts separate (either via different EA projects or disconnected models in the same project) from my components, requiring a "manual" update to deployment diagrams / artifacts if/when code changes?
I'm just getting started with Sparx EA (after migrating from RSA) and would appreciate the perspective of anyone with more EA experience than myself... as well as feedback on any anti-pattern red flags raised by my descriptions above.
There is no good/general answer to your question. You should use MDA with CIM/PIM/PSM views where you put the components in the PSM and the class model in the PIM. Now, to keep all that in synch the only true way is to do it manually - the hard way. Though EA offers a model transformation I can not really recommend that. It pretends to link/synch PIM and PSM (in this case) automagically. But it's just a bad facade. First it works only one way (PIM to PSM) and second you soon loose the contact between both model views as you don't really see the traces. Instead install the
<<trace>>connectors manually and annotate them as needed.