From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f2a0e357565ca388
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-03-25 02:29:54 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: martin.dowie@btopenworld.com (Martin Dowie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: case tools
Date: 25 Mar 2003 02:29:54 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <af783afe.0303250229.517b498c@posting.google.com>
References: <b5kujv$j9r$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <uvfy8zrvf.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <af783afe.0303240954.f3bf4ab@posting.google.com>
 <x7vbs00eyr8.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 20.138.254.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1048588194 27825 127.0.0.1 (25 Mar 2003 10:29:54
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Mar 2003 10:29:54 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:35677
Date: 2003-03-25T10:29:54+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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"?