[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > 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
|
