I don't know *what* you mean. I always though the original EJBs were just misunderstood :-)
On Feb 10, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Barney Boisvert wrote: > > Oh, I completely agree. UML is grotesque, but it is an accepted > standard that a lot of tools use. Funny how often those two things go > together. ;) > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Peter Bell > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Feb 10, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Barney Boisvert wrote: >> >>> In the real world, the model is often expressed in UML >> >> Only in Dante's sixth circle of hell :-) Seriously, I think the OMG >> is >> the main reason Domain Specific Modeling hasn't taken off. Go to any >> serious platform agnostic DSM conference (DSM forum at ooPSLA, Code >> Gen in Cambridge England, MoDELs, etc) and Tony Clark (or one of his >> friends) is the guy looking defensive, sitting in the corner and >> trying to explain to anyone who listens that with stereotypes you can >> do anything in UML (missing the point that you can also plant >> geraniums with a fork lift truck, some hydraulics and a little >> ingenuity - because something is possible doesn't mean it's optimal!) >> >> Heck I've heard it proposed that the only reason for the recent >> popularity of M2M transformations is the hideous structure of the >> models spat out by all of the UML tooling :-) >> >> Best Wishes, >> Peter >> >> >> >> >>> >> > > > > -- > Barney Boisvert > [email protected] > http://www.barneyb.com/ > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CFCDev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
