Rational Software Announces Rational Suite v2002


News: Rational Software Announces Rational Suite v2002

  1. Rational Software today announced the release of Rational Suite v2002. Rational Rose v2002 provides the ability to deploy Java and J2EE applications directly from Rational Rose to leading J2EE application servers. The Rational Unified Process includes detailed J2EE development advice, as well as new integration with the HP Bluestone J2EE app. server.

    Press Release
    Lexington, Mass., November 12, 2001--Rational Software (Nasdaq: RATL) today announced the release of Rational Suite® v2002, highlighted by a new product- Rational® ProjectConsole- broader access and enhancements to the Rational Developer NetworkSM, and improvements to the market-leading software configuration management tool, Rational® ClearCase®.

    Rational Suite v2002, the seventh synchronized release of Rational Suite in less than three years, comes with 15 pre-tested, integrated and co-released products in eight Rational Suite editions. Additional information on Rational Suite v2002 is available at: www.rational.com/announcing2002.jsp.

    "Software teams need development tools that liberate them from the activities that often make software development projects feel chaotic and unproductive," said Eric Schurr, senior vice president of marketing for Rational Software. "The new tools and enhancements in Rational Suite v2002 help developers write great software with the predictability and reliability that can make a significant impact on their business."

    With Rational Suite v2002, Rational is introducing Rational ProjectConsole, a new Web-based tool that helps software development teams save time and improve project predictability and success. This new tool in Rational Suite v2002 helps practitioners and team leaders collaboratively manage projects by automatically gathering key metrics about a software project and dynamically generating a project Web site. Rational ProjectConsole helps users of Rational Suite measure project progress and software quality.

    Rational also announced that it has expanded the breadth and depth of content on the Rational Developer Network. Now available to all Rational customers with an active support contract, the Rational Developer Network now includes:

    New Knowledge Centers focused on Rational RequisitePro, Rational Testing Tools, Rational ClearQuest and the IEEE Computer Society.

    New Exchanges for the Rational Unified Process and Rational Development Accelerators, which provide customers with an online community for locating, contributing, and downloading best practices, as well as reusable artifacts.

    Additional Web-based training courses for the Rational Unified Process, Rational ClearCase and Rational ClearQuest.

    Rational has also introduced improvements to Rational ClearCase v2002 that offer customers broader platform support and significant new productivity-enhancing capabilities, including:

    Support for IBM zSeries Mainframes with a new version of Rational ClearCase that runs on an IBM mainframe under Linux.

    Major enhancements to the Rational ClearCase Web browser interface, which improves support for remote users.

    Support of Windows Terminal Server and Windows XP, expanding customers' deployment options for Rational ClearCase.

    Enhancements in Unified Change Management for component-based development, providing out-of-the-box best practices process, even for complex projects and architectures.

    New integrations with the Sun Forte for C++ Integrated Development Environment (IDE) and automated deployment for IBM WebSphere.

    Separate press releases and product screenshots detailing these aspects of Rational Suite v2002 are available at: www.rational.com/news/v2002/index.jsp

    With Rational Suite v2002, Rational has also introduced the following:
    Java Enhancements to Rational Rose v2002
    Rational Rose v2002 provides the ability to deploy Java and J2EE applications directly from Rational Rose to a J2EE application server, such as IBM WebSphere, BEA WebLogic and Sun Java Reference Implementation.

    Improvements to Rational Test RealTime
    Rational has added two new runtime observation capabilities to Rational Test RealTime for memory leak detection and profiling. Rational has also improved the user experience with a single, integrated Graphical User Interface (GUI) for all Rational Test RealTime features. Rational Test RealTime is integrated with the Rational product family.

    Rational Suite Development Studio RealTime for UNIX
    Rational Suite Development Studio RealTime for UNIX is a new version of Rational Suite that addresses the challenges of real-time embedded software development. It contains Rational's market-leading development and testing tools that accelerate embedded software development and unify project teams by meeting the needs of the entire team, from requirements capture through deployment.

    Additional Platform Support in the Rational Unified Process
    The Rational Unified Process continues to provide leading-edge support for projects developing software for the J2EE platform, and now also provides detailed support for development teams transitioning to the Microsoft .NET platform. The new content recommends ways of employing the technology as well as a roadmap for software project development using the .NET platform. In addition, Rational has also introduced new HP Bluestone Total e-Server platform content in the Rational Unified Process, which includes a roadmap, guidelines, concepts, and tool mentors.

    Pricing and Availability
    The following prices will be in effect in the United States upon the shipment of Rational Suite v2002 and are in U.S. dollars for node-locked licenses: $3,995 for Rational Suite AnalystStudio; $4,795 for Rational Suite ContentStudioTM; $5,995 for Rational Suite DevelopmentStudio and Rational Suite TestStudio; and $7,695 for Rational Suite Enterprise. Customers with support agreements may request their upgrades at: www.rational.com/support/upgrades starting November 12, 2001. Upgrades will begin shipping within 30 days.

    About Rational Software Corporation
    Rational Software provides a software development platform that improves the speed, quality, and predictability of software projects. This integrated, full life-cycle solution combines software engineering best practices, market-leading tools, and professional services. Ninety-six of the Fortune 100 rely on Rational tools and services to build better software, faster. This open platform is extended by partners who provide more than 500 complementary products and services. Founded in 1981, Rational is one of the world's largest software companies, with revenues of $796.7 million in its twelve months ended September 30, 2001, and over 3,500 employees worldwide. Rational is a component of the Nasdaq-100 Index. Additional information is available on the Internet at: www.rational.com.

    Threaded Messages (35)

  2. Does anybody else out there think Rational's software sucks. Has anybody used Rose and actually thought it was worth the price tag?
  3. Rational software is really not affordable for most companies.....But in OOAD field, they rule.
    We`ll see that unless there are opensource tools mature enough(and given enough public focus too), price tag of rational software won`t be lowering down..
  4. Rational really suck very hard. But I agree, there is no alternative with such comprehensive integration/support/functionality. It's not really very buggy it's just that you have to learn to do it the "Rose-way". The round-trip engineering does indeed work _very_ well if you set things up the exact right way. If not it simply doesn't work at all.
    Sadly, I have to keep paying the embarassingly high amount of money for something that I wouldn't even think of using if there was an alternative. (And, yes, I've tried/evaluated most competition.) Also, Rational Software as a company is a bad employee and has unethical business-practices.
  5. Well, but you see... why should I do roundtrip engineering at all? Together allows this "two way wise", i.e. changes in source are reflected in diagram and vice versa immediately.
    You said you tried most of the competition, so I guess you also tried Together, and know it. What I'm saying here and what I said above is not intended to say "Together is better for everything"... I don't know Rose that well, so I think there are definitely reasons for choosing Rose.
    But: What I need is basically UML, I don't like the RUP (in fact, I hate it), I simply need UML and a good sync between diagram and source. This is what Together offers.
    What do others need? Why _are_ you choosing Rose?
    (BTW: Rose is really not well implemented: It is C++ but far slower than Together, which is pure Java. How can this be? ;-)

    cu and regards

  6. Rose has a wider spectrum of users. The same tool can be used by the entire project and even by the entire organization. Testers can use it, analysts, database-designers, web-designers, you name it. It is integrated with products such as RequisitePro, ClearQuest/Case. UML and modelling is about communication so we need to use the same tool everywhere. Basically all groups are complaining about it, but all groups are complaining equally much.

    I tried Together and it was _excellent_ at Java-design. If it was only up to my preferences I would have gone for that. The analysts want things like Visio (or even PowerPoint). Database-designers want to use products like Oracle Designer. etc. etc. Rational is basically pretty bad at everything, but do support everything.

    And, yeah, they have really succeded in doing one of the probably worst written applications in the history C++.
  7. You're just about right there. Rose does have support for a variety of other functions apart from straight-forward UML - Code - UML.

    Together is much, much better at the round-trip engineering business - but Rose is cheaper!! Need I say any more?
  8. Rose also allows for the two way auto synchronization and not just with the internal IDE editor, but with the editor of your choice including JBuilder, VAJ, Forte and VisualCafe. You can turn the synchronization on or off, so if you wish to evaluate your changes before making them permanent code, you can.
  9. Have you looked at Describe from Embarcadero for UML?

    Take a gander

    Link to Describe:


  10. Have you looked at Describe from Embarcadero for Java/UML?

    Take a gander

    Link to Describe:


  11. Every once in a while, I try to use Rose or Together/J for a project. I start out pretty good, but I find the pain of using either tool far greater than any benefit it provides and then stop using the tool. I haven't found the need to diagram many things. For the diagrams I do, I like to mix different levels of detail in the same diagram. That is very hard to do in Rose and Together/J. I find the UML templates in Visio are sufficient.

    Of course I also think IDEs suck, so I'm certainly not in the mainstream.
  12. Of course I also think IDEs suck, so I'm certainly not in the mainstream.

    Based on my expierences, I believe that you are in the 'mainstream'. Most people I know use vi/emacs/... + ant and Visio for UML diagrams. Also, time and time again, I observed new Java developers progressing through IDE's to emacs + ant. This being said, I really liked MS J++ environment.

  13. Have you looked at Describe from Embarcadero for Java/UML?

    Take a gander

    Link to Describe:


  14. Aaah.. Rational.. can't say much of Rose, since I haven't used it. I have used ClearCase for versioning for some time now though, and it is BY FAR the worst system I've ever used. It is COMPLETE crap. Not only does it have a terrible user interface, the versioning philosophy is flawed, it forces you to share the entire source code using SMB (yes, you *need* a firewall with ClearCase, or your entire code is exposed), and it is EXTREMELY slow.

    We did a net sniff during check-in of a tiny file, and apart from the actual check-in packet, it sent 2000 10-byte RPC packets, which made it *very* slow. And the cute part of that is that your bandwidth to the server is completely irrelevant, since the time is entirely latency based. There's NO way to get good performance with ClearCase if you're in a distributed environment (e.g. multiple offices with central server). It's bad during regular check-ins, but it really challenges your sanity during branch merges, since loads of files are processed at once. The only way to do that in a reasonably fast way is to have a computer close (geographically) to the server, do a remote login to it, and do the merge from there...

    *sigh* Hopefully Subversion will be feature-complete reasonably soon...

  15. After my company switched to ClearCase, we quickly renamed it "ClearCurse". We used it on Windows NT, and joked that the "check in" animation was so detailed because Rational knew we'd be spending a long time looking at it.

  16. Rich,

    During the many CC bug hunting sessions we have used the names "ClearlyCrazy", "F*kFace","PhearFace","QueerCase","ShootCase","StrangeCase","SuckCase", to mention but a few of the more popular ones. >:-) It seems our creativity went up as our productivity went down..

  17. Harpooning the Rational Whale[ Go to top ]

    I used Clear Case for a couple of years and found it to be unbearably slow. Also, we have found the other tools (such as Rose) to be really buggy. We are evaluating Together right now and it appears to be a good tool. As I interview senior engineers, Together seems to come up quite a bit.
  18. I used Rose for many years before switching to Together.
    What I really liked with the round trip engineering of your code to diagrams which is more difficult to set up in
    rose but comes out of the box with Together.

    The only downside of Together is that it is slow like most Java GUIs and on my Pentium 3 450MHZ with 256Meg of RAM I do find myself waiting for it at times. The usability really does beat Rose though.
  19. Anyone just LOVING Rational?[ Go to top ]

    I'm seeing a lot of support for Together in this thread, and I'm a Together user. I'd really like to hear from avid Rational Rose fans why Rose is great.

    Also, has anyone used Embarcadero's Describe? It's what a lot of people have requested from Together, a model view integrated into NetBeans, Forte for Java, and JBuilder.

  20. Anyone just LOVING Rational?[ Go to top ]

      Hi folks,
      Unfortunately for us(technical guys) many times doesn't matter if a product is superior technicaly. Most of decisions are based in market share, marketing strategies and political decisions. With together and rose is samething. Whenever is given us the choice to make the decision we try to do the best. From my personal expirience, I have heard more than once: "we pickuped Rose because is leader, it have a great structure , hevy trainning programmings etc" (this 2 last are specially true where in Brazil).

      Together is actually better than rose to generate code and round trip engineering.

      Rose offers a hi-level solution that is not the best in class when we looks at Java side, but it offers a good solution too if you know how to use.

      This is pretty much like comparing App.Servers. We will see tons of people claiming that WebLogic is better , WebSphere is better or Borland Enterprise Server is better. At end, most of companies rather to choose the top of market share.

      If you use the tool correctly with a process, it will serve for it purpose: to document and trace a project and help the code generation. And this Rose can do fine. Maybe not as efficiently as Together.
  21. Anyone just LOVING Rational?[ Go to top ]

    As a person who has used both Rose and Together (although I'm still pretty new to Together), here are my comments.

    I like the fact that Rose does not link directly to the source. I can create "analysis classes" and dummy classes that never produce actual code for the purpose of examples without finding that in my source base.

    Rose also allows (almost forces) the model to be broken into chunks. There are seperate "namespaces" that can, but don't have to, impact each other. In Together I have to create that myself by creating package for requirements, analysis, etc. Then I have to name them with something that sorts them to the top if I want to be able to understand my model organization.

    I also don't like the fact that Together puts stuff in my javadoc as information for the model. Once my source code is tested and I want to add some details to part of the model, I don't want that code to be edited.

    Granted this freedom from the source base comes back to bite me when I refactor after the design is code-generated.

    I got to the point where I document the architecture in Rose without trying to capture every little detail of the implementation, and if (or when) the code changes I'm more isolated from a model change. Maybe that's good, maybe not.

    Try MagicDraw once... its not bad and the price is much lower in comparion. I haven't used the code gen/rev. eng. features of it, but like I said I prefer to keep the model to high level design/architecture not implementation details so that doesn't save me all that much work.


  22. There are very few projects I have seen that have successfully used UML modelling throughout the project (usually just in the beginning). The most common reason for this is almost always the fact that the code base and the model get out of synch.

    The whole concept of "reverse engineering" immediately implies a process that can fail - and it often does. Once the code base has departed significantly from the initial model (which is just a matter of time), the synching of the model with the code turns into a project in itself.

    For this reason alone, Together has a big advantage over Rose. With Together the model-is-the-source-is-the-model, and there is no "reverse engineering" process required - and hence the source and the model are constantly in synch. (Ok, this is not 100% true - collections and the like require additional information regarding the nature of the relationship, that does have to be stored in javadoc comments)

    Also, given that you can edit the source and the model at the same time, this helps code-centric developers learn UML. Those who are not as familiar/productive with UML as they could be, get a helping hand by seeing immediately the effects of their changes to the model/code. This "dual-view" of your code also really helps in refactoring your design (you can "see" the mess your code is in ;-) when looking at a class diagram - and you can see the improvements as you make the changes).

    While Together's editor is not so hot, there is nothing stopping you using JBuilder or Forte et al (Together provides easy integration for external editors).

    In fact, if you combine Together with the VERY impressive IDEA IDE from <ahref="IntelliJhttp://www.intellij.com">IntelliJ> (I thoroughly urge people to check this out, after reading the <ahref="bible" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201485672/qid=1005760557/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/002-1290966-3475233">bible on Refactoring</a>) you have a very powerful combination for coding and refactoring. (look at the Pandora early access release of IDEA)

  23. Ahhh dear! You can tell I am not a web developer...

    Those links again:

    bible on Refactoring)

    Check them out.

  24. Modelling Tools and IDEs[ Go to top ]

    Hi there.

    Thanks for sharing the many experiences in the use of tools.
    I work as a software architect on different enterprise EJB projects, and I have also used ClearCase & Rose.

    My general opinion is that you can make the Rational tools work, though there are lots or errors and difficulties in the daily use.

    BUT my experience is also that different tools are suited for different roles in the project. As a software architect I do not need advanced code generation or possibilities for deployment of EJBs. I need a modelling & documentation tool for my (logical) models, and I like to generate interfaces for EJB Locale/Remote Interfaces directly from the model.

    In the same way I have never experienced a need from the programmers to do heavy modelling.

    So my wishlist for my projects contains:
    - a modelling tool for the architect (Rose or better)
    - a developer's tool (e.g. JBuilder, Together CC)
    - a configuration and version control system (still haven't found a good one).

  25. Modelling Tools and IDEs[ Go to top ]

    Hi Glenn,

    I fully agree with your proposal Rose is great for modelling and I love JBuilder. But all architectural issues are hard to get from a pure Rose Model to Code in JBuilder. That is why I choose ArcStyler (great product from a IT ARchitecture Boutique in Germany). With there product I saved more than 50% in Development time and was able to propagade my architecture to the whole product team.


  26. Jason wrote:
    > I like the fact that Rose does not link directly to the
    > source. I can create "analysis classes" and dummy classes
    > that never produce actual code for the purpose of
    > examples without finding that in my source base.

    This is possible in Together aswell if you structure your project properly. You can for instance use the following directory structure:

    o src - actual Java code + UML class diagrams

    o Analysis - UML domain model

    o Patterns - UML descriptions of the patterns in your architecture

    o Features - UML descriptions (uses cases, sequence diagrams, etc.) of the features / uses cases in your application

    In the Patterns and Features parts you can selectively use class diagrams from the src part by adding them as shortcuts to your UML diagrams. You can also add "analysis classes" in the Analysis part without adding them to the actual java code in the src part.

  27. bloatware[ Go to top ]

    Hi Rickard,

    That must mean you haven't used PVCS :-) I never used ClearCase, but I suffered with PVCS in one client project and everyone one the team just hated it. It was the typical immensely complicated bloatware that appeals to non-technical managers because it supposedly does everything but in reality does nothing quite right. When the basic abstractions are not the good ones, or require weeks of training/experience just to begin to understand them, you know that you are doomed. Especially when every action is amazingly slow and inefficient. I very much prefer a tool that does one thing right (source control), therefore I use Perforce - give it a try with the free two-user version if you can, then evaluate how much time you would save by using it instead of ClearCase. In the project I mentioned, we were losing 15% of our time due to PVCS. If you want to have fun, you can demonstrate that to the manager who selected ClearCase and spent megabucks on it (some of it in license costs and much more in wasted time). Except that he won't be pleased in being proven an idiot who threw away the company's money on bloatware licenses and caused overruns on projects :-)

    I have not used Rose for more than 10 minutes, so I kept my sanity, but I always hear stories about technical guys hating it and managers buying it. As Jon said, its selling point is that it does everything, and other vendors don't have such a comprehensive toolset (however bad it may actually turn out to be).

    The above explains why I have bought Together CC and Perforce for my company and am now getting started with Eclipse. But it's a luxury to choose your tools, I admit...

  28. bloatware[ Go to top ]


    Fortunately I'll stay sane(r) in the future, as I just quit my job ;-) And yes, ClearCase was one of the big reasons to leave. About the 15%, all I can say is (picture the Month Python bragging-sketch): "awh.. luxury!". Example: last week I had done a merge-back which possibly screwed up the main branch. So, I had to get a new branch just to verify that the merge worked out ok. It took half a day to get the branch, one day to do the actual verification and cleanup (because yes, the main branch *was* broken), and half a day to merge it back in. Two days for a one day job, which shouldn't have had to happen in the first place. So, is that 50%,100%, or 200% more than if CC had not been used?...

    About the project manager, unfortunately it was he who decided that we should use CC last year. He has decided that it's good, and no matter what happens it'll stay, because, quote:"it worked great in his last job". I won't even try to imagine how much money we've spent on it. I know it's a one followed by many many zeroes...

    Ah well, I don't care any more :-) I just don't want any fellow developer to ever have to endure that c*p.

  29. bloatware[ Go to top ]

    Here's my take on the modeling tool landscape :

    I have used Rose extensively, off and on for the past 4 years. I have also used Together Control Center and a little known tool named Enterprise Architect (see http://www.sparxsystems.com.au).

    Rational Rose is a bloated pig (the install for RR2001 was 233 MB) which has bugs that have been around for 4 versions. It's obvious to me that Rational does not eat its own dogfood or they would've fixed the little annoyances in this product long ago. Rose is also prohibitively expensive (5k or so per license last time I checked).

    Together Control Center is a wonderful tool (as long as you have a good machine with lots of RAM). Its far superior to Rose but is still VERY expensive (about 7k per floating license). Were it not for the price tag, Together CC would dominate the market. I wish Togethersoft would adopt a different pricing strategy. They make it so expensive, they take it out of the hands of the masses (only big corps can afford the Togethersoft licensing structure).

    Enterprise Architect (EA) is a really cool tool I started using about 3-4 months ago and I've been extremely impressed. It is a Rose Killer. It is better than Rose at just about everything (and doesn't have the bloat/bugs). EA is VERY tight and fast (the install is only 9 MB). I've used it extensively and it has yet to crash on me. The best thing is the price. A full license for EA is only $99 for the desktop edition and $150 for the professional version.

    If money was no object, I would use Together CC, but as far as value goes, EA is a lot of bang for the buck.

    My 2 Cents,
  30. bloatware[ Go to top ]

    I have just tried out the software that Lance mentions above (http://www.sparxsystems.com.au - Enterprise Architect) and am very impressed. I haven't explored all of the options and ins-and-outs of the application, but it does everything I need a UML tool to do and at an extremely reasonable price. It seems that both Rose (which has always been a bloated pig) and Together are built exclusively for companies with large budgets - something that as an independent contractor I don't have. And I am only looking for a solid UML modeling tool, with some reverse engineering capabilities. Enterise Architect satisifies these criteria and then some. I would encourage folks with these requirements to check it out.

    Thanks Lance!

  31. bloatware[ Go to top ]


    TogetherSoft has an independent contractor license. It is still around the $1,000 dollar mark, but as you bring TogetherSoft in on deals, they will reduce your cost. This $1,000 dollars also covers premium support. You get all updates and access to technical support. If you want more information, contact me at mailto:[email protected]
  32. After using Rose, and then trying TogetherSoft CC. I'll never go back. With the version of Rose I was using, I constantly had to go and tweak the association list when I updated the model. Perhaps this was a bug, and has since been fixed but another person mentioned that this issue had been around awhile. Also I tried using Roses forward engineering (java) capability, it worked but it was a clumsy experience for me at least. I did not like the roseuid tags all in my code either. Now TogetherSoft has some glitches here and there, but the whole model-code-deploy-REFACTOR has been a big plus, since Together makes it so easy. The code editor in Together needs a bit of help, when compared to the likes of JBuilder 5 or Visual Studio .Net. Once Together spiffs up its code editor and perhaps a GUI design tab (great for quick UI prototying!) Together has so many things you can do (Ant,Junit,etc), and you can actually discover how to use them without the awkwardness of Rose, IMHO. Maybe this new one is better????? And if you have ever tried to use the Rose Model Integrator without reading docs you know what I mean.

  33. I agree - Rational is an barely OK product with a ludicrous price tag which is only the "market leader" because of their marketing department. It certainly isn't because of the strength of their product. If you really want a decent tool which actually supports UML rather than paying lip service to it, try Together.

  34. Sick of Rose, look at Describe[ Go to top ]

    Have you looked at Describe from Embarcadero for Java/UML?

    Take a gander

    Link to Describe:

  35. I have used almost all of the Rational tools and I have witnessed my company (a Fortune 50) company try and convince its IT dept that this software will do the trick. Basically, it is an excuse to keep a department alive. So far, it has been a huge failure. No serious developers I know use this crap. I consider none of their products best of breed.

    My view of Rational is that their code is bloated and their tools are very unproductive. For managing a project, VA Sourceforge tools are 10x better.
  36. Rose is certainly bloated and for analysing EJB's for example insists on importing all the J2EE packages before doing anything. This in itself takes a few minutes. Further Rose has a proprietary format (at you might expect), without a free reader which is a real draw back.

    But saying that we put Rose diagrams as a download from our EJB site and they have been very popular. Which for us was very surprising.

    As far as other tools go I liked Poseidon which is free as a community edition, and is cheap ($129 I think) for versions that support J2EE packages.