Instead, the implementation started from the main insurance product concept that
produced the main product de?¬?nition. This was followed by implementing each
individual domain concept based on the metamodel structure, that is, ?¬?rst, all elements
related to the product concept were handled and then following the connections they
have until all domain concepts were handled. Finally, generators for producing the
common infrastructure code, such as package, importing, and data-type de?¬?nitions,
were implemented. This order did not allow testing of the generated code in the target
environment since not all infrastructure code was available. This approach was partly
a result of using an external consultant to make the generator, without access to the
target environment for testing purposes. Therefore, generator testing during
development was done solely by comparing the generated code to the manually
written reference applications.
The generator was structured so that the handling of domain concepts was checked
at the generation time: whenMOF classes and their related attributes were generated,
the characteristics of the domain concept were used to change the code generation. In
this way, for example, the risk related classes were created differently from the
payment related classes although the generator modules were the same.
Pages:
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264