Re: Comparison : Ada and UML (comparison… indeed)

["J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr>]

Le 09/11/2010 12:04, Matteo Bordin a �crit :

> I personally don't see much sense in trying to semantically merge the
> HOOD modeling approach (based on the notion of static "class"
> instance) with the UML one (based on the dichotomy between classifiers
> [classes] and typed elements [objects and class members]).
There is no UML modeling approach. UML is a language (used by various
modelling approaches, granted). If the purpose of UML is to reduce the
confusion by standardizing boxes and arrows, why not use it on HOOD? It
will make a HOOD design more understandable to people who are not used
to HOOD diagrams.

> Decorating
> a UML class with an <<HOOD_Active_Object>> stereotype (or whatever)
> does not mean much: a UML class needs to be instantiated to have a run-
> time executable semantics, while a HOOD object doesn't. This
> inconsistency has a lot of repercussions on several model elements and
> on several levels.
UML claims that it can represent any design method, thanks to stereotypes...

> Of course, you can always come up with a GUI intelligent enough to
> hide the semantic inconsistency between the two languages,
HOOD is not a language, but primarily a design method. Diagrams are just
used as a representation of the result of a design.

> but the
> underlying UML model (supposing models are serialized to UML and not
> to proprietary formats)
Note that HOOD defines a portable, open format for representing HOOD
designs - and it did that long before UML.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Adalog a d�m�nag� / Adalog has moved:
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00