Support Forums: Message List - Taylor MDA 1.1.0, model-driven architecture on rails, released http://www.theserverside.com Most recent forum messages en Jive Forums Silver 5.5.30 (www.jivesoftware.com) Thu, 23 May 2013 03:18:18 -0400 Re: Taylor works outside of EJB and Seam? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:43:24 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:43:24 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:43:24 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 John Gilbert 0 Taylor works outside of EJB and Seam? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:07:49 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:07:49 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:07:49 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Florin Gheorghies 1 Re: How do you... http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 But even then UML generally says what you want to do, not what really happens on the coding level. Technically the cardinality on relationships like 1->n or 1->(1..4) are hardly ever captured in code to avoid the implementation...]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:13:28 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:13:28 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:13:28 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Bj??rn Caroll 0 Re: How do you... http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 Not quite, I think. Given a unidirectional relationship from class A to B, the reason you don't see it in B is not because it does not exist there, per se. It is because the designers of the Java language (given that this is the language we...]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:14:21 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:14:21 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:14:21 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Karl Banke 0 Re: How do you... http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 More exactly, the unidirectional relationship simply does not exist in the far end. That's why it's unidirectional, right!? ...]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:38:39 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:38:39 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:38:39 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Ragnar Westad 1 Re: How do you... http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 That does not mean that UML diagrams are always easy to understand as size grows. But in my opinion, showing relationships between classes is probably the one thing they definetly do better than source code....]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:19:53 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:19:53 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:19:53 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Karl Banke 2 Re: How do you... http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 With 20 Java Classes (given coding is type safe), it is fairly easy to spot the relationships. Anything > 10 UML Classes in a non trivial view is unreadable. A diagram has its purpose precisely when you cannot see the relationsships...]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:00:19 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:00:19 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:00:19 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Ragnar Westad 3 Re: How do you... http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 Using Java code you have to load each file into your editor and scroll through several lines of code and make a mental image of the relations. I am surprised that anyone can say that it is easier (or at least as easy) to read code compared...]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:56:04 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:56:04 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:56:04 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Karl Banke 1 Re: How do you... http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503
*Try yourself to understand the relations of 20 java classes from a bunch of source code files. Then compare that to a class diagram with 20 objects.

With 20 Java Classes (given coding is type safe), it is...]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:02:49 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:02:49 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:02:49 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Bj??rn Caroll 2 How do you... http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 *Try yourself to understand the relations of 20 java classes from a bunch of source code files. Then compare that to a class diagram with 20 objects....]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:38:41 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:38:41 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:38:41 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Karl Banke 7 Re: Why not POJO centric instead of UML centric http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 Hi Ragnar,

> the model is not just another view ... it exists at a higher level of abstraction. ... some way of code generation will be necessary... Ragnar


But you can use Java + annotations as a...]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:29:29 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:29:29 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:29:29 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Bj??rn Caroll 8 Re: Why not POJO centric instead of UML centric http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 But you can use Java + annotations as a design notation with the same level of abstraction of UML, and with code generation (if you wish)....]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:34:31 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:34:31 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:34:31 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Ragnar Westad 0 Re: Why not POJO centric instead of UML centric http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:25:08 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:25:08 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:25:08 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 javierpaniza 10 Re: Why not POJO centric instead of UML centric http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 Change from UML to code, and vice versa. Because UML is only a view of the code, but not the code....]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:13:47 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:13:47 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:13:47 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Ragnar Westad 11 What's the purpose? http://www.theserverside.com/discussions/thread.tss?thread_id=48503 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:42:53 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:42:53 -0500 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:42:53 -0500 Feb 26, 2008 Karl Banke 0