Hi Richard & Margus,
Thanks for your answers. They were just what I was hoping to see. My impression is that very few actually uses full roundtrip engineering in Rose, and most of the projects uses Rose for analysis and design, like your project Margus. However there are a few that have seen the usefullness of full roundtrip, and some of them have actually had success, like your project Richard. But I still beleive that the majority of projects using Rose does not use the roundtrip-engineering support (please correct me if I'm wrong on this assumption). I've also worked in a project where we did full roundtrip engineering using Borland C++ Builder and the ANSI-C++ support in Rose, and I totally agree with you Richard. The version-controll is by far the biggest problem. However we did have some trouble keeping the model and code 100% synchronized all the time, but that was probably due to lack of "...a rock-solid process, disciplined developers and a good system admin.", and the fact that ANSI C++ is a bit more complex to handle in Rose than VC++. Margus: > In my opinion, Rose is > not very good editor for writing C++ (or Java) classes, this is better > done directly in C++. In addition, if you refine your model far enough > so that you can generate code from it, it becomes very complex and loses > it's point - model should help you get overview of your class structure, > focusing on important points and leaving out unimportant ones. If your > model is as complex as your code, you might as well use a good class > browser to navigate that. I'm not sure that I agree with your view here. In my opinion, the ideal solution would be that your model was 100% in synch with your code. If you think of it, neither the model nor the code IS the system. Both the model and the code are in fact a model of your system, one described as a UML-model, the other described as a C++ model..... I agree that the support given by Rose is not good enough to achieve this, but in my opinion, the overall goal should be to make your model as complete and accurate as possible. Then be selective about how you PRESENT your model through your diagrams. Remember that diagrams IS NOT the modell, but is the tool for you to use to set focus on certain aspects of your model. And I do agree with you here: Do not overdo the making of diagrams. By the way, what is a complex model ? If you feel your model is very complex since it is 100% in synch with your code, then isn't the code just as complex ? In which "domain" would you rather work to solve complex systems ? Directly in the code, or in the model ? What I would really like to see in the near future, is Rose (or XDE) beeing able to handle both model and code, so that the only place you need to be in order to make your system is in Rose (except from when compiling....or? ). Together is an example of a tool that has such support. In Together you work from your model, adding classes, defining attributes and operations (as Rose does), and provides you with a Java-editor with full syntax highlightning and other usefull functionallity usually found in Java-editors/IDEs. Hence when generating code from your model, not only is the skeleton of your classes generated, but also the body of the operations. The biggest problem with large, complex models in Rose as far as I'm concerned, is the storage format used. To be able to have access to all classes in a large model (2000 - 5000 classes), you need to load your entire model into memory, which takes a lot of time and memory, but thats a different discussion :-) Regards Arne > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Chrenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 3:08 PM > To: Styve, Arne > Subject: Re: (ROSE) who uses rational rose > > > I was part of a team developing a numerical simulation with a > computational core developed using VC++, a GUI front-end > developed using > JBuilder, and a back-end Oracle8i database. Sockets were used to > coordinate the Java and C++ processes. Rose was used for both Java and > C++ round-trip development, albeit using separate models. The forward- > and reverse-engineering features handle model-code > synchronisation quite > robustly. One problem which did arise was the round-trip > engineering of > GUI code. We used JBuilder's designer tool to lay out our > GUI, but a lot > of hand-coding still needed to be done which could not always be > translated back into the JBuilder designer. > > By far the bigger issue for us was the integration of our > source control > system. Trying to keep track of Rose model versions, source code > changes, integration activities, etc. requires a rock-solid process, > disciplined developers and a good system admin. I predict > this will give > you more headaches than model-code roundtrip engineering. > > -- > Richard Chrenko > > "Styve, Arne" wrote: > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > I would like to hear your experiences with the full > roundtrip engineering in > > Rose. Are you implementing in VC++, Java or ANSI C++ ? How > do you ensure > > that the model and code is in 100% sync all the time ? > > > > Regards > > > > Arne > > > This email, its content and any attachments is PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL to TANDBERG Television. If received in error please notify the sender and destroy the original message and attachments. ************************************************************************ * 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 *************************************************************************
