reverse engineering and renamed classes in code

[Mr. Sanders]

Hello,

We have the following scenario:

We use kind of 3rd party classes, which we reverse engineered to be able using these classes in our model.

Now our model is infused with hundreds of sequence diagrams using these classes.

Now we got a new release of the 3rd party classes, where some very core classes were renamed.

What happens at reverse engineering?
EA find the new renamed classes and provides you a dialog where you can delete the old class from the model, because EA thinks the old classes are gone from code. (because of the missing ids in the source code, rose!)

Deleting the old class corupts all diagrams in our model and this is a very rude mechanism.

Not deleting it results in two classes.
The new renamed one (not in the diagrams) and the still in the model existing old class (still in the diagrams).

What we need are additional buttons/dialogs/mechanisms where we are able to say
e.g. replace old class with new class (so internal uids stay the same), so the diagrams are not corupted.

Of course there are still other problems to solve, e.g.
methods/attibutes/properties are renamed, ...
In an additional release we would expect to have the same kind of matching of old to new methods/attributes/.. too.

But for a first shot, it would be very helpful that hundreds of diagrams are not corupted.

It's much easier to redraw the new messages than to redraw the whole diagram or diagram part concerning the deleted class.

Please give us a solution for that.

Michael

[«Midnight»]

Ouch!

Please keep us posted on what you hear from Sparx.

[Mr. Sanders]

Hello Midnight,

what's the ouch for?

Me or the subject?

Did you burn your fingers before?

Nevertheless, I wrote a feature request for that too.

Michael

[«Midnight»]

Definitely the subject Michael.

Somehow, rebuilding "hundreds of sequence" diagrams doesn't seem like the result of a successful import to me. There's got to be something more productive for you to do with your time.

Let's hope something can be done to ease this situation. Your suggestion for a partial fix is pretty good, and like you say it would at least make the situation tolerable.

[Mr. Sanders]

I propose, that such tool providers, like Sparx, Rational (now IBM) should develop their tool by using its tool.

I know that rational was not using rose at development.

That's what rational consultants were whispering to me.

Is Sparx using the EA to develop EA?

They would have the same problems, isn't it?
And a lot of problems would be fixed through the pain
the developers would have.

[«Midnight»]

You make a very good point.

Take a look at the EA documentation. EA was used throughout, not just for screen shots and examples, but to illustrate things like the structure of the object model. This has been true since at least version 4.0.

Regardless, sequence diagrams have always been sort of 'orphans' in EA. The engine that builds and manipulates them appears to be a completely different piece of code from that used in other diagrams. This shows up in all sorts of places.

You could search the forum for some interesting (or frustrating) observations on this point. At least you could search the forum if you didn't have to use all your time rebuilding your model after an import.

Still, given what EA does do correctly, it's not the end of the world.

David

[thomaskilian]

I propose, that such tool providers, like Sparx, Rational (now IBM) should develop their tool by using its tool.

I know that rational was not using rose at development.

That's what rational consultants were whispering to me.

Is Sparx using the EA to develop EA?

They would have the same problems, isn't it?
And a lot of problems would be fixed through the pain
the developers would have.

We discussed this before and as there was no "We Designed EA With EA" I suppose that has not changed. Probably the code is the documentation and it's in some obscure Visual $omething from M$...

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I've been asking tool providers this for nearly twenty years - haven't got a "Yes" yet.

I've got some very equivocal, fudgy answers, but never a definite yes...

And even if it was.... Doesn't seem to have altered the outcome...

Paolo

[BKV]

That is realy a necessary feature!!!
Looking forward for implementation...