Re: ANN: ASIS2XML 20041024a

[Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>]

Simon Wright wrote:

> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> 
>> Simon Wright wrote:
>>ignoredSIS2XML converts a unit's ASIS representation into XML, so as to
make
>> > it easier to develop transformational tools using (for example) XSLT.
>> > 
>> > As supplied, it relies on GNAT; the only ASIS-for-GNAT feature it
>> > relies on is that Data_Decomposition.Size has been extended to work
>> > for Subtype Indications; and that only so that it can work out how
>> > many bytes a record component will occupy when streamed (this part is
>> > in progress)
>> > 
>> > Not every ASIS feature is supported yet.
>> > 
>> > There is no XML Schema as yet (however, the output's structure follows
>> > that of ASIS as determined from the Ada specs -- I'm not at all sure
>> > this is the Right Thing for an XML representation).
>> 
>> Well XMI would be cool. All important UML tool can import XMI. Also
>> it is a standart.
> 
> Where did I say XMI?!!

A little misunderstanding here: I was merely suggesting XMI as XML Schema
since you havn't got one yet.

> I can see the attraction of it, not that I'd thought of such a thing,
> but it seems to me that a UML model is going to be (ought to be) a
> representation of a problem domain at an abstraction level rather
> higher than that of an Ada program.

True, but UML should also be forward and reverse engeneerable to the actual
code. Otherwise it would not be of much use.

> If it's at the same level, why not 
> just write Ada?

UML can be used to give to an overvier over the programm. 

> There are all sorts of things you can say in Ada that have no natural
> representation (that I'm aware of, anyway, though I'd be prepared to
> be proved wrong) in UML; for example, a generic formal subprogram
> parameter.

Well UML has generic parameters it does not say much about the type. Which
is inline with the higher level view you where mentioning: There is a
generic parameter - details are left to the languages.

As for XMI: XMI allows user/language defined extentions where those details
can be described. They would be ignored when imported from tools which
don't know them
 
> I'm pretty sure that XMI would allow communication at the syntactic
> level but not at the semantic level. After all, to do anything really
> helpful with UML you need a profile to say what the symbols (those in
> the standard, and your extensions) actually mean.

UML has stereotypes for everything which is beyond the standart. XMI has
extentions where code generators and such like can keep there extra
information.

The real advantage would be the ability to display the model with any
program capable of XMI import - wich should render better then an normal
XML Browser.

With Regards

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com