which diagrams qualify for MDA/code generation?

[Kaneda]

Hi there, me again

which diagrams can be used for an MDA process?

Class diagram if self explanatory, but how about sequence and activity diagrams?
And is it possible, to link these two diagrams with the "ueber"-class diagram?

Or is this done by default, if the classes names fit to each other?

What I hope to achieve is to
a) model my class diagram (with a class "design")
b) model a sequence diagram (for an action within the design class)
c) model an activity diagram (for a decision process within the action modelled in b)
d) let EA generate code for all mentioned above.

Is this possible (maybe with "add child diagramm" in the context menue)?

[Kaneda]

ok, I just realized that code generation from a sequence diagramm is not possible.

This is actually a bit of a letdown.
I don't know about the activity diagramm yet (but I will try, shouldn't be so hard to figure out), but I think it would be a GREAT addon to EA if a process like I described above would be possible.

Escpecially in the context of MDA and its continuous rise to ... well, uhm..., becoming maybe the new standard in software development (give or take a couple of years).

As I reviewed multiple MDA-wanna-be tools for what I am currently doing (the final work for my studies), I realized that EA was the only tool I found, which supported right from the start C# model to model generation, and which was on top relativly easily adjustable.

Borland Together - well either way I am too stupid or sth., but I was not willing to spent 3 days for just finding the feature, or it only does its "instand code thing", Rationa XDE has only a Java toolkit (and both come and an horrendous price).
ArcStyler is extremly slow (on my PC), has an extremly UGLY java user interface (bad joke for software at that price I think), but is extremly powerful and extremly customizable. However, the model to model thing is quite new and there are now standard templates (yet), so it involves a lot of work (and knowing Jython).
Well, I won't mention the rest I tested (or tried to)...


So EA is a great product at an even better price, and I think it would be great to remain at that level in regard of current MDA  standards.
Especially with new Together 2006 coming soon (I guess that one will have model to model), and ArcStyler getting probably also a proper stanard template set.

Maybe, as soon as OMGs QVT is finally standardized, Sparx should go for as much model to model and model to code generation as possible...

[thomaskilian]

I recently found this article. I'd also like to ask whether Sparx is working with/observing the development of QVT.

[Eve]

I recently found this article. I'd also like to ask whether Sparx is working with/observing the development of QVT.

We are obverving the developement of QVT.  I think I actually read that article before development of our transformation templates.  We will probably offer a QVT style transformation system when QVT is more stable.  Our current transformation system is there
1. So that we could offer transformations in EA now.
2. Because it is a lot easier (at least conceptually) to write transformations.