In the second approach, the developer gives input to a
wizard that generates some of the code. The developer has to add code and is also
responsible for maintaining the code generated by the wizard. The input to the wizard
is often lost, or the wizard cannot be repeated. Even in the best case, there are a bunch
of gotchas, documented and undocumented, awaiting the developer who tries to
repeat the wizard after signi?¬?cant manual coding. In the third case, the developer
works solely with models in a DSM language. The code is generated from those
models and takes advantage of a domain framework.
Unlike the component framework it rests upon, which is generic for all problem
domains and/or all companies, the domain framework is speci?¬?c to the problem
domain and the particular company that is using the DSM solution. This allows the
generated code to be smaller than the generated or handwritten code in previous
approaches. Although the generated code and domain framework together will be
Platform
Component
framework
Domain
framework
Generated
code
Model
Platform Platform
Component
framework
Component
framework
Handwritten
code
Generated
and
Handwritten
code
Wizard
FIGURE 12.1 Manual coding versus Wizards versus DSM
312 DOMAIN FRAMEWORK
around the same size as previous approaches, the amount of code across the range of
products will be less since the domain framework is only counted once.
Pages:
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584