Advertisement

Why Unified Is not Universal

UML Shortcomings for Coping with Round-Trip Engineering
  • Serge Demeyer
  • Stéphane Ducasse
  • Sander Tichelaar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1723)

Abstract

UML is currently embraced as “the” standard in object-oriented modeling languages, the recent work of OMG on the Meta Object Facility (MOF) being the most noteworthy example. We welcome these standardisation efforts, yet warn against the tendency to use UML as the panacea for all exchange standards. In particular, we argue that UML is not sufficient to serve as a tool-interoperability standard for integrating round-trip engineering tools, because one is forced to rely on UML’s built-in extension mechanisms to adequately model the reality in source-code. Consequently, we propose an alternative meta-model (named FAMIX), which serves as the tool interoperability standard within the FAMOOS project and which includes a number of constructive suggestions that we hope will influence future releases of the UML and MOF standards.

Keywords

Meta model unified modeling language (UML) meta-object facility (MOF) interoperability standard famoos information exchange (FAMIX) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Grady Booch. Object Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications. The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co. Inc., 2nd edition, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Serge Demeyer and Stéphane Ducasse. Metrics, do they really help ? In Jacques Malenfant, editor, Proceedings LMO’99 (Languages et Modèles à Objets), pages 69–82. HERMES Science Publications, Paris, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Serge Demeyer, Stéphane Ducasse, and Michele Lanza. A hybrid reverse engineering platform combining metrics and program visualization. In Françoise Balmas, Mike Blaha, and Spencer Rugaber, editors, WCRE’99 Proceedings (6th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering). IEEE, October 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Martin Fowler, Kent Beck, John Brant, William Opdyke, and Don Roberts. Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Adele Goldberg and Kenneth S. Rubin. SucceedingWith Objects: Decision Frameworks for Project Management. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1995.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Object Management Group. Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification. OMG Document ad/97-08-14. Object Management Group, September 1997.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Brian Henderson-Sellers. Object-Oriented Metrics: Measures of Complexity. Prentice-Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Ivar Jacobson, Grady Booch, and James Rumbaugh. The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Ivar Jacobson, Martin Griss, and Patrik Jonsson. Software Reuse. Addison-Wesley/ACM Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Danny B. Lange and Yuichi Nakamura. Interactive visualization of design patterns can help in framework understanding. In Proceedings of OOPSLA’95, pages 342–357. ACM Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Mark Lorenz and Jeff Kidd. Object-Oriented Software Metrics: A Practical Approach. Prentice-Hall, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    William F. Opdyke. Refactoring Object-Oriented Frameworks. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Wim De Pauw, Richard Helm, Doug Kimelman, and John Vlissides. Visualizing the behavior of object-oriented systems. In Proceedings OOPSLA’ 93, pages 326–337. ACM Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Trygve Reenskaug. Working with Objects: The OOram Software Engineering Method. Manning Publications, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Tamar Richner and Stéphane Ducasse. Recovering high-level views of object-oriented applications from static and dynamic information. In Hongji Yang and Lee White, editors, Proceedings ICSM’99 (International Conference on Software Maintenance). IEEE, September 1999.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Don Roberts, John Brant, and Ralph E. Johnson. A refactoring tool for smalltalk. Journal of Theory and Practice of Object Systems (TAPOS), 3(4):253–263, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Rational Software, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Sterling Software, MCI Systemhouse, Unisys, ICON Computing, IntelliCorp, i Logix, IBM, ObjecTime, Platinum Technology, Ptech, Taskon, Reich Technologies, and Softeam. Unified Modeling Language (version 1.1). Rational Software Corporation, September 1997.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Rational Software, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, Sterling Software, MCI Systemhouse, Unisys, ICON Computing, IntelliCorp, i Logix, IBM, ObjecTime, Platinum Technology, Ptech, Taskon, Reich Technologies, and Softeam. Unified Modeling Language — UML Semantics (version 1.1). Rational Software Corporation, September 1997.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Sander Tichelaar and Serge Demeyer. SNiFF+ talks to Rational Rose — interoperability using a common exchange model. In SNiFF+ User’s Conference, January 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serge Demeyer
    • 1
  • Stéphane Ducasse
    • 1
  • Sander Tichelaar
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Composition GroupUniversity of BerneBerne

Personalised recommendations