Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > Even if you can map the constructs of an OO framework onto a > > particular relational database, it can't be automated because > > the *intent* is divergent. Well, the intent is mostly > > informal, unspecified, and floating free. The definitions of > > the system aren't themselves closed, at least not on the OO > > side. > > I believe it is mostly possible to automatically reverse engineer a given > language (say Java or C++) into a UML representation? I have heard this innumerable times in theory. In practice, there's nothing there but the sound of gnashing teeth in the outer darkness of unkempt. Programmers don't come up with pejorative nickames such as "Irrational corrosion" and "Object Demise" for fun. Depending on the results of automatic reverse-engineering fro OO languages into UML is a true recipe for clamity. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com Gems From the [Python/XML] Archives - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/04/09/py-xm l.html Introducing N-Triples - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi nk17/index.html Use internal references in XML vocabularies - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerw orks/xml/library/x-tipvocab.html EXSLT by example - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-exslt.html The worry about program wizards - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=7238 Use rdf:about and rdf:ID effectively in RDF/XML - http://www-106.ibm.com/develo perworks/xml/library/x-tiprdfai.html
|
