爆氣

早上驚喜看著組員完成的介面，修正一些比較顯著的問題，下午進實驗室和助教進行 demo。負責我們這組的助教是那個比較兇的博士班學生。先從 use case diagrams 開始，講著講著，助教不斷暗示我們 use cases 之間應該有一些關係（e.g. <<extend>>、<<include>>），並說「如果我們只看 use case diagrams，這些 use cases 的關係就不清楚」。於是我說「事實上 use case diagrams 本身不是那麼重要，重點應該放在文字敘述，也就是 flow of events 的描述上」，助教問「這是誰說的」？

這…竟然作球過來？！與我辯論 C++/OOP 者，萬萬不可讓我有引用的機會啊！我直覺觸發正規的引用模式，「專家說的：《UML Distilled, Third Edition》by Martin Fowler，use cases 那一章裡面說的」！之後行雲流水故作鎮定地一張一張講下去，助教問問題，我也都板著臉一一快速反擊，到中後段助教只在那裡「喔，喔」:P。真是大爆走，一洩長期忍受電話先生所積累的怨氣，只是事後對助教有些抱歉 :P。

補上《UML Distilled, 3/e》的相關敘述：

... In your use case work, don't put too much effort into the diagram. Instead, concentrate on the textual content of the use cases.

The best way to think of a use case diagram is that it's a graphical table of contents for the use case set. ...

... The UML includes other relationships between use cases beyond the simple includes, such as <<extend>>. I strongly suggest that you ignore them. I've seen many situations in which teams can get terribly hung up on when to use different use case relationships, and such energy is wasted. Instead, concentrate on the texual description of a use case; that's where the real value of the technique lies. ...

... The more I see of use cases, the less valuable the use case diagram seems to be. With use cases, concentrate your energy on their text rather than on the diagram. Despite the fact that the UML has nothing to say about the use case text, it is the text that contains all the value in the technique. ...

--
嗆完後真是又爽又怕 XD。