[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
> Mitch Amiano <mamiano@nc.rr.com> writes:
<snip/>
>>the *intent* is divergent. Well, the intent is mostly
>>informal, unspecified, and floating free.
<snip/>
> I believe it is mostly possible to automatically reverse engineer a given
> language (say Java or C++) into a UML representation? At that point you've
> got abstractions which it seems are pretty much well defined and self
> contained? You're right that you can't then map this to any arbitrary
I've seen engineering teams waste years trying to get reverse engineering right.
> pre-existing schema, but I don't see what is stopping you from generating a
> new relational schema that can store all the given objects and their
> attributes? Certainly Java CMP is one example of this (albeit perhaps an
> ugly one). Maybe this gets back to the normalization issue: the result may
> not fit with what a best practices relational model would look like, but it
> should still work?
Whether it will work for a given situation is beyond this discussion, but
we do seem to be moving more and more toward technologies that allow
one-off deployment.
> <snip/>
>
|
