Re: UML & Ada

[Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org>]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> The last time I went informally cruising through anything to do with the
> UML, I seem to recall that it lacked any means of representing Ada tasks.
> Through interaction diagrams, you kind of had a way of saying how one thread
> of control would interact with another, but when it came to representing
> something that should be translated to a task, complete with rendesvous,
> etc, there didn't seem to be any way of expressing this.

I'm not very fond of UML, as it seems you need a large number of
diagrams, each of which contributes a couple of bits to the total
description. I much prefer something like CAIM, in which a few diagrams
each contribute a great deal.

It also seems as if UML works best for business applications in C++, so
of course there would be no concept of tasking.

That said, however, I think a modeling notation should not represent
language-specific implementation features. The initial default
assumption should be that all objects are active, and that can then be
modified as you work towards an implementation.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail