Clarification Regarding Labels on Class Diagrams

[itstrueitstrueitsrealitsreal]

Hi, just wanted to clarify if using the <<>> notation to denote the implemented design patterns in our DG is acceptable. As an example,

would indicate that Ui uses the Observer and Facade patterns.

Additionally, would it be acceptable to omit <<interface>> or {abstract} if we were to replace them with the name of a role in a design pattern? Thanks!

[damithc]

Hi, just wanted to clarify if using the <<>> notation to denote the implemented design patterns in our DG is acceptable. As an example,

would indicate that Ui uses the Observer and Facade patterns.

@itstrueitstrueitsrealitsreal Yes, in class diagrams (not in object diagrams as stated in the post subject)

Additionally, would it be acceptable to omit <<interface>> or {abstract} if we were to replace them with the name of a role in a design pattern? Thanks!

No. These two are separate from the additional stereotypes you add to a class.

[itstrueitstrueitsrealitsreal]

Thanks for the clarification! I have updated the post subject accordingly. In that case, I have an additional follow-up question: Would the following be acceptable in a class diagram?

[damithc]

@itstrueitstrueitsrealitsreal It is fine to have multiple stereotypes for a UML entity.

[itstrueitstrueitsrealitsreal]

Thanks for the clarification! Marking this post as closed.