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: 2003-03-24 22:40:37 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!diablo.theplanet.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: case tools
Date: 25 Mar 2003 06:39:07 +0000
Organization: Pushface
Sender: simon@smaug.pushface.org
Message-ID: <x7vbs00eyr8.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
References: <b5kujv$j9r$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <uvfy8zrvf.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <af783afe.0303240954.f3bf4ab@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1048574436 2627 62.49.19.209 (25 Mar 2003 06:40:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 06:40:36 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:35667
Date: 2003-03-25T06:39:07+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

martin.dowie@btopenworld.com (Martin Dowie) writes:

> There is a move within the AdaUK and led by Artisan
> (www.artisansw.com) to come up with standard UML<->Ada mappings,
> perhaps analogous to the mapping between IDL and Ada.

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".

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 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.