Re: case tools

[martin.dowie@btopenworld.com (Martin Dowie)]

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message news:<x7vbs00eyr8.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>...
> I have probably said this before .. although I can see the value of an
> out-of-the-box mapping, to get projects started, I don't believe that
> the mapping appropriate to "my" project is necessarily appropriate to
> "yours".

Quite true - but hopefully the defaults will be "good enough" 9 times
out of 10.


> I also think that the UML<-Ada part will prove challenging .. the Ada
> package is quite a hard concept to express in UML, and the idea of a
> generic signature is even more fun. To some extend this depends on the
> tool concerned .. UML allows, I think, the concept of a parameterised
> collaboration (generic package to you and me, I think) but Rose
> doesn't.

I believe the effort is primarily UML -> SPARK95 and UML -> Ada95.

The reversing is always more of a problem no matter what the language.


> I think it is highly questionable whether every Ada construct should
> be representable in UML. For a start, it allows individual developers
> a lot of licence as to what architectural features they use, and you
> don't always want that; anyone who has seen the amazing code
> generation property sheets available in Rose and, I think, Rhapsody
> (don't know Artisan) will know what I mean.

what do you mean by "architectural features"?