Sparx Systems Forum
Enterprise Architect => General Board => Topic started by: Gary W. on May 01, 2008, 08:27:59 am
-
Hi,
I'm about to write my first MDA transform, and I wonder which link I should use in mapping:
- Design-time Java classes back to Analysis-time classes (from which they were derived)
- Logical Persistence <entity> classes back to their Design-time Java classes (from which they were initially derived)
- Physical Persistence <table> classes back to their <entity> classes
Yes, I know this is very waterfall-y, and yes we can skip the "Design-time Java" and "Logical Persistence" layers, but we're slowly moving from an Oracle Forms/OracleDB world into the OO & UML, world.
If I can prove the viability of MDA, then we won't be bound by legacy Data Administration naming standards and conventions. Not that I mind this (as I started off doing a lot of Data Modeling), but I'd like to leave that behind and focus on OO for Analysis, separating out the relational aspects.
We've allowed Hibernate ORM into our shop, so ideally we'd leave the OO<->relational mapping here, but it'll probably take a few steps to get the organization thinking along these lines.
So... I'm leaning towards "trace" but when I tested out the built-in Transform templates, I noticed that none of them had links back to their source element.
Did I mess up somewhere with the Transform options?
TIA
Gary
-
Built in transforms don't automatically create anything back to the original element. (Well actually something is there and can be seen in the heirarchy view, it's just not a connector of any kind.)
As for what connector to create, I would probably lean towards trace. It's kind of a realize, but I'd be a bit worried that it could interfere with code generation.
If you're wanting to create the relationship look at the last example on http://www.sparxsystems.com/EAUserGuide/index.html?transformingconnectors.htm