Unlike DSM, withUML
it is not possible to know how and when to reuse data from models or from external
code, choose between patterns for a given task, ensure that application developers
follow your architectural rules, check design correctness based on your domain,
separate the model data into different aspects relevant in your domain, and so on. The
reason for this is simple: these are impossible to standardize as they differ from one
domain and company to another. Even in the same team, use ofUMLfor model-driven
development would require that all developers remember all these rules and twist
standardUMLsemantics similarly to convey their design to othermembers of the team.
In some cases, often very close to the implementation,UMLhas been used to automate
development with more extensive code generation. Deeper inspection of such cases
shows that UMLis not followed as in the standard: the notation may look the same but
the meaning of the concepts and structure of the language (metamodel) have been
changed. In practice, the ?¬?rst step toward a domain-speci?¬?c approach has been taken.
3.3.2 How Does DSM Differ from Executable UML?
Similarly, the initiatives that aim to useUMLas a programming language (Mellor and
Balcer, 2002; Raistrick et al., 2004) cover parts of the whole UML. Deeper inspection
of these approaches and their implementation in tools (like BridgePoint, iUML,
OlivaNova) shows that the UML standard is not followed and the UML modeling
concepts are modi?¬?ed and extended.
Pages:
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126