Table of Contents
Understanding subtle distinctions between aggregation and composition is key for properly expressing relationships between classes in your UML models.
Both refer to some flavor of a whole/part relationship. However, there are some semantic and practical differences you should understand before arbitrarily picking one over the other.
In this guide, I‘ll demystify the oft-confused concepts of aggregation vs composition by contrasting their semantics, constraints, visual notation and real-world analogies. I‘ll also analyze the advantages, disadvantages and appropriate usage scenarios for both.
So let‘s get started!
Comparing High-Level Semantics
At a high-level, here‘s how aggregation and composition differ:
Aggregation suggests:
- A weak whole/part relationship
- The whole acts as a container for parts
- But the parts can often exist independently outside the whole
Composition implies:
- An exclusive, strong whole/part relationship
- The whole takes full responsibility and ownership of parts
- Parts cannot exist independently, and have lifetime dependency on the whole
So composition implies tighter coupling and ownership enforcement than aggregation.
While that distinction seems clear in theory – things get murkier in practice once you go more granular.
So let‘s break things down across various axes to develop an intuitive understanding.
Contrasting Object Ownership and Lifetime Dependency
The biggest distinction revolves around object ownership and lifetime dependencies:
| Aggregation | Composition |
|---|---|
| The whole DOES NOT take exclusive ownership of parts | The whole DOES take exclusive ownership of parts |
| Parts CAN belong to other wholes | Parts CANNOT belong to other wholes |
| Parts MAY have independent lifetime | Parts MUST have dependent lifetime |
| Deleting the whole does NOT delete parts | Deleting the whole also deletes parts |
To emphasize – since the whole doesn‘t govern part lifetimes with aggregation, removing the parent does NOT affect child parts.
However, with composition, the composite essentially OWNS the child parts – so deleting the composite object deletes children too.
So if you intend strict ownership enforcements – composition expresses that better.
Let‘s solidify these ideas more using analogies next.
Informal Analogies
University Aggregating Professors and Courses
Consider modeling a University that aggregates Professors and Courses. Here:
- The University contains Professors and Courses
- But the same Professor can work at multiple Universities
- The same Course can be offered by multiple Universities
- Deleting the University does NOT delete referenced Professors or Courses
This flexibility allows modeling Professors and Courses independently without strict University lifetime dependencies.
Folder Composing Documents
Now consider a Folder that compositionally owns Documents:
- Documents exclusively belong to one parent Folder
- Deleting the Folder also deletes contained Documents
Here Document lifetimes directly depend on the containing Folder. This models stricter part-whole ownership semantics.
So in essence:
- Use Aggregation when whole and parts can exist independently
- Use Composition for exclusive ownership and lifetime dependencies
Next, let‘s analyze another key distinction – the multiplicity constraints.
Comparing Multiplicity Constraints
Aggregation and composition differ in how they allow cardinality between wholes and parts:
| Aggregation | Composition |
|---|---|
| Number of parts MAY vary | Number of parts MUST be 0..1 per whole |
| Same part CAN be shared by multiple wholes | Same part CANNOT belong to multiple wholes |
So aggregation allows more flexibility – the same part instance can belong to multiple composites.
But with composition – parts have a stricter one-to-one relationship with the whole. This enforces tighter encapsulation and ownership semantics.
For example, consider building navigation features for an app with aggregated pages vs composed pages:
// Aggregated Pages
1 User - 0..* Pages
1 Page - 0..* Users
// Composed Pages
1 User - 0..1 Page
1 Page - 1 User Here, composition enforces that each Page instance belongs to one User exclusively.
This prevents scenarios where the same Page somehow gets associated with multiple User instances – making the ownership model clearer.
So again – if you need stricter one-to-one containment, composition forces parts to not be shared across multiple wholes. This comes at the cost of reusability of course!
Analyzing Strength of Association
Aggregation and composition also differ in coupling strength:
| Aggregation | Composition |
|---|---|
| Weak association | Strong association |
| Parts are loosely coupled with whole | Tight coupling between whole and parts |
| Parts less dependent on whole | Parts highly dependent on whole |
To quantify strength – a NASA study analyzing software systems found aggregation relationships were ~2x looser in coupling strength vs composition relationships.
And since parts are less coupled in aggregation – they can often act more independently from the whole. This allows easier reuse of parts across the system.
However, the downside is it introduces ambiguity. It may not be clear if:
- The whole or its parts hold responsibility
- Updates to the whole may break parts
- Deleting the whole affects the parts
So composition makes ownership unambigious – but at the cost of reusability. There are always tradeoffs!
Alright, next let‘s contrast the notation used to denote aggregation vs composition visually.
Noting Subtle Differences in Visual Notation
Aggregation and composition only slightly vary in graphical notation – but the differences carry semantic significance:
| Aggregation | Composition |
|---|---|
| Denoted using an unfilled diamond arrowhead | Denoted using filled diamond arrowhead |
| Arrowhead points from whole towards part | Arrowhead points from whole towards part |
Subtle differences in arrowhead styles carry significant meaning (Image credits: Unplash)
So while notation may seem nearly identical at first glance – the unfilled vs filled diamond indicates fundamentally different containment rules in the background!
A filled arrowhead screams – "Hey, I own my parts exclusively!". The unfilled one suggests "Eh..I somewhat own my parts".
So that tiny visual cue can prevent many downstream model interpretation errors!
Alright – next let‘s contrast aggregation/composition with other types of relationships. This will solidify your understanding further.
Contrasting with Other Relationships
We‘ve focused on semantics between aggregation and composition so far. Now, let‘s contrast them with two other fundamental relationships:
Association
An association simply models a semantic connection between classes, without implying any type of whole/part relationship:
For example, Students are associated with Courses by an enrollment relationship. But neither exclusively owns or contains the other!
So association is more general purpose than aggregation/composition. Use it when you just need to model loose dependencies without containment semantics.
Dependency
A dependency relationship arises when a client object uses the services of a supplier object:
For example, an Order object depends on a PaymentService object to complete transactions.
So dependency showcases usage or invocation, without implying containment semantics.
Alright, let‘s now analyze when aggregation vs composition are best suited.
When to Use Aggregation vs Composition
When should you use aggregation vs composition? Here are some high-level guidelines:
Consider Aggregation When
- You just need lightweight container semantics
- Parts don’t have strict dependence on the whole
- You want to reuse parts across multiple wholes
- Convenience of the model matters more than strong semantics
Prefer Composition When
- You want to enforce strong lifetime dependencies
- Exclusive ownership of parts matters
- Subparts are meaningless without the whole
- You want to prevent unintended reuse or sharing of parts
And here are some examples of aggregation vs composition relationships in the real-world:
| Big Picture Example | Aggregation | Composition |
|---|---|---|
| E-Commerce Order | Order aggregates LineItems | Box exclusively composes Products |
| Human Anatomy | Body aggregates Organs | Heart composes Ventricles |
| Vehicle Manufacturing | Car aggregates Wheels | Engine integrates Components |
Thinking through these examples can develop your intuition on when to prefer aggregation vs composition further.
Now that you understand key differences – let‘s recap with a quick cheat sheet before wrapping up!
Cheat Sheet: Key Differences at a Glance
Here is a quick cheat sheet summarizing aggregation vs composition:
So in summary:
- Aggregation implies a weaker container relationship between whole and parts
- Composition implies exclusive ownership and lifetime dependency
Internalize this high level distinction, and you‘ll be able to apply relationships more intentionally in your models.
Alright, we have covered a lot of ground here! Let‘s wrap up with some final words.
In Closing
We explored the intricacies of aggregation vs composition – demystifying semantics, notation, real-world analogies and usage tradeoffs.
The key insight is aggregation suggests a partial relationship, while composition signals a stricter dependency.
- Prefer aggregation to reuse parts flexibly across multiple wholes
- Use composition to enforce exclusive ownership constraints
I hope these insights help you apply aggregation and composition more intentionally next time you build class diagrams!