Which OO is in ??

Which OO is in ??

[Paul Foster]

In the early nineties choosing an OO design method was
quite straight forward, if you were using SPARK Ada
as your primary language then you would used HOOD,
otherwise for full blown Ada you would used teamwork
Yourdon. Here in 2001 things are slightly different with
Ada95 and UML now firmly established on the scene.
Can anybody give me some guidance as to what OO
methods are being used now and why, and if the project
is restricted to only a subset of the Ada language ??

Thanks
Paul

Re: Which OO is in ??

[Ted Dennison]

In article <9kc0h3$ftu$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Foster says...
>
>In the early nineties choosing an OO design method was
>quite straight forward, if you were using SPARK Ada
>as your primary language then you would used HOOD,
>otherwise for full blown Ada you would used teamwork
>Yourdon. Here in 2001 things are slightly different with
>Ada95 and UML now firmly established on the scene.
>Can anybody give me some guidance as to what OO
>methods are being used now and why, and if the project
>is restricted to only a subset of the Ada language ??

Are you asking about methodologies, or CASE tools?

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Which OO is in ??

[Paul Foster]

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:5Qfa7.15268$ar1.52831@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <9kc0h3$ftu$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Foster says...
> >
>
> Are you asking about methodologies, or CASE tools?
>

Both


> ---
> T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
>           home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Which OO is in ??

[Hambut]

"Paul Foster" <paul@fos-ltd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9kc0h3$ftu$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> In the early nineties choosing an OO design method was
> quite straight forward, if you were using SPARK Ada
> as your primary language then you would used HOOD,
> otherwise for full blown Ada you would used teamwork
> Yourdon. Here in 2001 things are slightly different with
> Ada95 and UML now firmly established on the scene.
> Can anybody give me some guidance as to what OO
> methods are being used now and why, and if the project
> is restricted to only a subset of the Ada language ??
> 

I think it's probably even more straight forward for new projects now.
 The choice seems to be UML, UML or possibly HOOD (although HOOD
doesn't seem to have the visible level of support that UML has.  My
impression is that HOOD is mainly used for large legacy projects and
(possibly) within ESA).

Note I'm not necessarily saying that this is a good or bad thing.

Shlaer-Mellor is a possibility, but I believe that S-M vendors are
starting to re-align to UML.

As for dealing with the sub-set issue I don't believe that there is as
yet a UML profile which explicitly supports things like SPARK or
C-SMART, although it's probably been worked on by some tool vendors.

My thought is that you'd need to look carefully at what the chosen
language sub-set was trying to achieve, and then potentially 'sub-set'
the design methodology to support those same aims (at the very least
I'd expect a Code of Design Practice to be defined which defines
guidelines to support the aims).

As a simple (UML) example;

o  The chosen sub-set might 'ban' aliasing of variables (because it
greatly complicates static verification).

o  The use of the UML 'aggregation' construct might be banned during
design in favour of the 'composition' construct because 'aggregation'
may imply aliasing.

The point of doing this is to ensure that your design doesn't 'clash'
with the sub-set.  'Clashing' with the sub-set is potentially bad
because developers will spend most of their time 'fighting' with the
sub-set.  Which may mean that the sub-set is subverted, and that the
benefits you should gain from the sub-set are not gained.

cheers,

Hambut

Re: Which OO is in ??

[Martin Dowie]

Hambut <hfrumblefoot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f75c450.0108030127.6c60f9a2@posting.google.com...
> I think it's probably even more straight forward for new projects now.
[snip]
> sub-set.  Which may mean that the sub-set is subverted, and that the
> benefits you should gain from the sub-set are not gained.

I think the original poster is asking what method he would use
together with UML (if that were the notation chosen).

For UML you have at least RUP, ROPES, RtP Mentor and god only
knows how many more methods. At least one per tool vendor!

But I'm sorry I don't know which one is the 'de facto' standard. :-(

Re: Which OO is in ??

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3b6a97c5@pull.gecm.com>, Martin Dowie says...
>
>I think the original poster is asking what method he would use
>together with UML (if that were the notation chosen).
>
>For UML you have at least RUP, ROPES, RtP Mentor and god only
>knows how many more methods. At least one per tool vendor!

Some tool vendors just provide UML, and don't stilt things towards any
particular process. We used ObjectTeam, which has now morphed into Telelogic TAU
I believe. For a process, we used "Texel-Williams", which is Use-Case and UML
based.

>But I'm sorry I don't know which one is the 'de facto' standard. :-(

Not that I've seen. Perhaps a shakeout will come.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Which OO is in ??

[Hambut]

"Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@nospam.baesystems.com> wrote in message news:<3b6a97c5@pull.gecm.com>...
> Hambut <hfrumblefoot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f75c450.0108030127.6c60f9a2@posting.google.com...
> > I think it's probably even more straight forward for new projects now.
>  [snip]
> > sub-set.  Which may mean that the sub-set is subverted, and that the
> > benefits you should gain from the sub-set are not gained.
> 
> I think the original poster is asking what method he would use
> together with UML (if that were the notation chosen).
> 

Fair enough. 

It is still probably important to think carefully about how the
notation maps to the implementation language before use ( OK so this
is probably almost a 'how to suck eggs' kind of thing  - but for a
project using a sub-set I would guess that it's very easy to not think
this issue).

Re: Which OO is in ??

[Martin Dowie]

Hambut <hfrumblefoot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb75c450.0108031228.282f899a@posting.google.com...
> Fair enough.
>
> It is still probably important to think carefully about how the
> notation maps to the implementation language before use ( OK so this
> is probably almost a 'how to suck eggs' kind of thing  - but for a
> project using a sub-set I would guess that it's very easy to not think
> this issue).

Absolutely, anyone using Artisan's Real-time Studio Pro UML tool
together with the Ada code generator?

Care to share any thoughts? (off-line is ok)

Re: Which OO is in ??

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 841 bytes --]


"Hambut" <hfrumblefoot@yahoo.com> a �crit dans le message news: fb75c450.0108030127.6c60f9a2@posting.google.com...
> I think it's probably even more straight forward for new projects now.
>  The choice seems to be UML, UML or possibly HOOD (although HOOD
> doesn't seem to have the visible level of support that UML has.  My
> impression is that HOOD is mainly used for large legacy projects and
> (possibly) within ESA).
>
HOOD is quite in the same position as Ada: still alive and well, new projects being developped in various domains, total lack of
visibility.
Also, there is only one company left that is really active in enhancing its HOOD tools: TNI. Have a look at www.tni.fr

--
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Which OO is in ??

[Shayne Flint]

Hambut wrote:

> Shlaer-Mellor is a possibility, but I believe that S-M vendors are
> starting to re-align to UML.

Shlaer-Mellor is a 'method'.

UML is a no more than a 'notation'.

They are different things.

Models produced when using the Shlaer-Mellor 'method' can be 'represented' using different 'notations'
including Shlaer-Mellor's notation or UML.

So, this so-called 're-alignment' is no more than vendors supporting UML as a 'notation' - it has not changed
the Shlaer-Mellor method in any way at all!

BTW - Having just taught 140 3rd year students the Shlaer-Mellor method, I believe that software engineers
can gain a great deal from a good understanding of what the Shlaer-Mellor method is all about, where UML fits
in, and most importantly the benefits of the translative approach that Shaler-Mellor is (ie. the use of
clearly defined rules to translate application models into code in accordance with a separately specified,
and often reusable, architecture).

------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Shayne Flint, MIEAust, CPEng        shayne@ainslie-software.com
-- Ainslie Software Pty Limited    http://www.ainslie-software.com
------------------------------------------------------------------