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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,96ba962787c3bfce X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ray Blaak Subject: Re: UML Ada modeling question Date: 2000/04/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 610285729 Sender: blaak@LANGLEY References: <01HW.B51985E40058873E04BB51B0@news.pacbell.net> X-Complaints-To: news@bctel.net X-Trace: news.bc.tac.net 955560791 209.53.149.65 (Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:33:11 PDT) Organization: The Transcend NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:33:11 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "David Kristola" writes: > Object Team (a.k.a. COOL:Jex) does not allow nesting of UML packages, > and if we had used a subsystem per package, well, it would have been > a nighmare. I don't know how it would have turned out if we had used > Rose. This seems to me to be a unnecessary and irritating limitation. Hierarchical namespaces are a critical ability for any large system, especially when mapping to a language like Ada that has it. At any rate, Object Team is not adhering to the UML standard. A package is explicitly specified as a namespace that can contain, among other things, sub packages. I suppose you can "fake" by naming your packages with a dot syntax, e.g. Root, Root.Child, etc, but things just compose better with true hierarchies, especially considering visiblity to parent names, etc. Of course, your solution works too. -- Cheers, The Rhythm is around me, The Rhythm has control. Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me, blaak@infomatch.com The Rhythm has my soul.