Hi,
The question is, did you forward engineer first and then reversed? If so,
you should set the associations to derived between your Domain Analysis
objects, and then generate the classes. It will not remove you
associations when you reverse engineer the source code.
However, this is only applicable to pure Java interfaces. Rose seems to
keep the associations for classes that have class attributes. Java
interfaces don't have attributes. You will notice that upon code
generation, Rose will create class attributes that implement the association
between 2 classes in Interfaces. You then must remove it, since, an
Interface can only have static finals, also called constants.
This works really well to preserve your Analysis model->Design
Model->Implementation Model views. Updating the Implementation model from
the current Java Code a couple of weeks later is a simple process and will
help preserve all of your model views. Everybody's happy!
This is a flaw with Rose, it should keep the associations.
So, the workaround is to set the associations to derived so that your
Analysis and Design model information are preserved.
James.
> ----------
> From: Long, Richard non Unisys[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: Long, Richard non Unisys
> Sent: 2002, January 13 4:53 PM
> To: rose_forum (E-mail)
> Subject: (ROSE) Descriptive associations and reverse engineering of
> Java
>
>
>
> We are attempting to intermix reverse engineering of code into our model
> with class digrams that have descriptive associations (can be thought of
> as
> business domain associations). These descriptive associations are used in
> high level diagrams in our specification documents. The problem is that
> the
> each time we reverse engineer the code back into the model, it removes the
> descriptive associations.
>
> For example, a Parent has a number of Children and this is implemented in
> the code as a java.util.Vector which is a member variable of the parent.
> As
> the Vector is untyped there is no obvious association between the Parent
> and
> it's Children, so we would like to add an association to the model which
> represents that relationship. Attempting to reverse engineer the code will
> remove the descriptive association.
>
> Does anybody know how to get Rose to stop removing the descriptive
> associations ?
>
> ,
> Richard Long
>
> ************************************************************************
> * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> *
> * Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Archive of messages:
> * http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp
> * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
> * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Subject: <BLANK>
> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
> *************************************************************************
>
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
* http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject: <BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*************************************************************************
