From: "Steven Hovater" <nh-ho@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: Is Apex dead as an environment for Ada & Java?
Date: 1999/11/26
Date: 1999-11-26T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <l9E%3.2897$tG2.65404@wbnws01.ne.mediaone.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 000b8d9b.8e8e4afb@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com
Useless for Ada95? That'll come as a surprise to quite a few of my
customers.
And how do you enforce your architecture? Another of the strengths that Apex
brings is that one can use its subsystems and views to enforce your software
architecture. It's common practice among Apex users to use what are called
"export sets" which allow a user to define the visibility into a view,
thereby
preventing unintended and potentially architecture-breaking dependencies
to be established.
The browsing that Apex does is far beyond what one can get with emacs
(I can't comment on the other environments). One can navigate (based on
Asis)
to object and type definitions that the compiler sees - it's not a
tags-based
paradigm as in other approaches.
Finally, as Tom indicated, for tiny projects, Apex _is_ probably overkill.
BUT -
imagine a single program library and the sheer impracticality of having
mega-lines of source code in a single bucket.
Apex scales.
Disclaimer: I spend 99% of my time working with Apex and Apex embedded
projects
with Rational's customers in the NorthEast.
Regards,
Steve
--
Steven Hovater
svh@rational.com
Software Engineering Consultant
Phone/fax:781-676-2565/2500
Rational Software
Pager: 888-906-2209
83 Hartwell Ave, Lexington, MA
Amateur radio: AA1YH
jim_snead <basswoodNObaSPAM@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:000b8d9b.8e8e4afb@usw-ex0107-042.remarq.com...
> In article <OF58CF2558.4CE834B3-ON88256835.006A3FF1@ray.ca>,
> Tom_Hargraves@Raytheon.com wrote:
> > *** We are an Ada83 project. Ada 95 may be of help here. However,
> > my brain gets
> > more and more taxed, the more dots I see in declarations, and
> > 'renames' doesn't
> > seem to help ;-)
>
> Like I said, I don't care about Ada 83 with respect to Apex.
> Apex Subsystems may be a viable option for organizing Ada 83
> packages. However subsystems are useless for standard Ada 95.
> According to one rationale I saw, the Ada 95 package
> hierarchy was introduced as an advancement of the old
> Rational R1000 (?) subsystem approach.
>
> My hypothesis is that using a single subsystem and then using
> multiple Apex "views" is all that is needed for a large Ada 95 project.
> It stands to reason that the concept of a subsystem is therefore
> unnecessary and outdated.
>
> Other options are combinations of CVS, emacs, etc as others
> have proposed. These sound much more effective for Ada 95
> and Java development.
>
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-11-26 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-11-26 0:00 Is Apex dead as an environment for Ada & Java? Tom_Hargraves
1999-11-26 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-11-26 0:00 ` Steven Hovater [this message]
1999-11-26 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-12-09 0:00 ` Wes Groleau
1999-12-12 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-11-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-09 0:00 ` Henrik Delin
[not found] ` <01bf3857$22ca59a0$022a6282@dieppe>
1999-11-26 0:00 ` Ed Falis
[not found] ` <01bf38cc$04d205e0$022a6282@dieppe>
1999-11-27 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-12-18 0:00 ` Steven Hovater
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1999-11-26 0:00 jim_snead
1999-11-28 0:00 ` Martin Dowie
1999-11-28 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-11-28 0:00 ` mike_zebrowski
1999-11-28 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-11-29 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris
1999-11-29 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-11-29 0:00 ` John Duncan
1999-11-30 0:00 ` reason67
1999-12-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-11-30 0:00 ` John Duncan
1999-11-30 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris
1999-11-30 0:00 ` Martin Dowie
1999-12-01 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner
1999-12-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-03 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1999-12-03 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1999-11-29 0:00 ` reason67
1999-11-29 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-11-30 0:00 ` reason67
1999-11-30 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-11-30 0:00 ` Martin Dowie
1999-11-30 0:00 ` Martin Dowie
1999-11-29 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-11-30 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris
1999-11-30 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-12-01 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris
1999-11-30 0:00 ` Martin Dowie
1999-11-30 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-12-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-01 0:00 ` Martin Dowie
1999-12-01 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-12-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-02 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
1999-12-02 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1999-12-09 0:00 ` Mark Hertel
1999-12-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-11 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle
1999-12-11 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic
1999-12-11 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic
1999-12-11 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic
1999-12-11 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic
1999-11-30 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1999-11-30 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-11-30 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-11-30 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-12-01 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1999-12-01 0:00 ` Andreas Winckler
1999-12-01 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-12-02 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris
1999-12-02 0:00 ` jim_snead
1999-12-06 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris
1999-12-18 0:00 ` Steven Hovater
1999-12-02 0:00 ` Andreas Winckler
1999-12-01 0:00 ` David W. Glessner
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox