Hi, attached is a deployment diagram. I’d be keen to get any comments on the accuracy or suggested changes.
Thanks
Mark
Using interfaces is probably not best. The protocol isnt the interface its part of the mean to access it. Interface is class offering services/functions/operations.
I know VP allows it and its not illegal but its “odd”.
You should probably show some external “node” representing things that can connect to your nodes and then label or sterotype associations between these if you like to show allowed protocols. For a Port I’d tend to use these to show maybe that I have a command channel - eg ability to monitor the environment from a management tool component. But dont lose sight of the purpose of a deployment diagram. Deployment diagram is structural not behavioural so your aiming to show how you “use” the execution environment is unusual but not bad. Also consider that in UML a network itself can be a node and certainly Id consider doing that because if I think about it its more flexible to do it that way. You can set up a new sterotype of <> course and then you can properly seperate executiion environments from the things that likely control network access to that environment
