Messages

1

General Board / Re: UML 1.4

« on: March 08, 2002, 09:40:31 pm »

Steve, Geoff:

Absolutely!  This is where the "flexible" part comes in.  I agree and have with this aspect all along.

Now that we are all in agreement let me pose this question...is this the death of the UML 1.4 thread?    
<LOL>



Rusty

2

General Board / Re: UML 1.4

« on: March 07, 2002, 01:58:52 pm »

Steve,

I agree kinda.  But don't you have to standardize on something?  You standardize but enable enough flexibility to deviate only when necessary.

It is like the English language.  We have a baseline for the language.  New words and meanings are added as the human race matures.  Old words take on new meanings as well.  The word Gay in 1950s meant happy.  Today however it means something totally different.  But the way it is spelled and pronounced is the same.  We also have some spanish, latin, french, and other languages mized in with the etomology of english  but that does not mean we begin integrating with the english language pure spanish per se.  We do not want Spanglish but English.

Same with UML.  UML is a visual communications language and therefore will mature over time.  Adopt 1.1, when 1.2 comes out adopt it in full..1.3, 1.4 etc.  While there may be some changes, in the meanings of the notation, the notation stays the same.  It is the capturing of the change in the meaning that is paramount.

Rusty

3

General Board / Re: UML 1.4

« on: March 05, 2002, 07:25:44 am »

Steve,


Sorry for the delay...innundated with changing requirements suddenly.  But to answer your question...yes.  1.4 has "refined" some elements which actually change the semantics of the notation.  

This has been brough up at least once that I know of.

Rusty

4

General Board / Re: UML 1.4

« on: February 22, 2002, 10:24:56 am »

James,

"Better than sticking with 1.3 until 1.4 compliance arrives all in one go at some point in the future."

Agreed.

"Let's not forget that, not so long ago, everyone thought that 1.3 was the biz and berated those still using 1.2!"

Agreed.  But this is NOT what I have been stating herein.  Notational communication should be either alll 1.2, or all 1.3, or all 1.4 not a blending of some of this and some of that.

But as much as I would like to adopt a hard-line on this, for small software shops, this is an unrealistic approach.  The object is satisfaction of your user base.  As an Architect if I need to...say, use the web iconizations to stereotype my  notation, but and have to wait for a specific totally compliant future build of a EA to do this, it does not help me in the present tense...which means I go find something that will.  Like Steve has stated earlier, it is a Catch-22.

"As the software industry becomes more mature and adopts 'traditional' engineering principles our standards will continue to evolve."

Agreed.

"I think that Geoff and his team have got it right - adopt those bits of new standards as soon as possible where practical, and the remainder in due course."  

Disagree conceptually but Agree in reality.  Citing my explanation above.

"Better than sticking with 1.3 until 1.4 compliance arrives all in one go at some point in the future."

Agreed, but you contradict yourself here.

"There is however another issue, whereby the rapid pace of change within EA makes it hard for large teams to be sure that they are all working on the same version.  That subject may well be worth starting a separate discussion thread for......"

Agreed.

What a discussion this has turned into!  Gets the mental juices flowing!  

Rusty.

5

General Board / Re: UML 1.4

« on: February 21, 2002, 02:00:29 pm »

Steve, Alan:

I think what I was attempting to say is that it was discovered that communications was the problem with the X-ray machine.

Now in the business software space, I come out of the life critical software sector.   Aerospace software.   Our code fails, people die.  We adhered to standards religiously and did not diviate unless approved; which usually meant a rewrite of our specifications.  We communicated in one language, were all on the same page with one well understood modeling language---and people lived.  We found better ways and faster ways of doing our job, but did not implement them until they became approved.

The reason everyone thinks standards are good in principle (akin to saying in reality they do not work) is because we work in an industry that is focused on a fast buck, not software quality.  

"Get it out there, we'll release patches later."   However, times are changing.

The reason I used the bridge analogy is that as a consultant and FTE I have made my living TEARING down legacy systems and rebuilding them...for extremely large and visible companies.

As a Software Engineering Manager at one point in my life, I imposed strict adherance to standards across my team.   We adopted and followed the Unified Process, used modeling tools that were compliant with the latest OMG specification.  One language of communication.  We were so successful that the corporation made the group the "standard" (pardon the pun)  by which other software shops internally were measured.

However...we did diviate from our path when we had no other choice, but always came back to the main line as quick as possible.

Notation, modeling is communication.  Had we had tools that produced models in UML 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., we would not have been as successful.  

I have come in and stuck my finger in the hole of bleeding  systems where standards were dropped for business goals.  Look at the Dot Gones?  Most did not employ good standards or even attempt to follow an OO much less iterative process of development.  I was there.  

I guess if you let people debate standards none will adopt them because each person is thinking about how it impacts them.  This is why one person should decide with input from many.

The point is a tool that supports UML 1.4 in its entirety so that communication of complex systems is captured correctly, and understood correctly by going to 1 specification and not 3.

Whew...

Rusty  

6

General Board / Re: UML 1.4

« on: February 20, 2002, 09:46:33 pm »

Steve,

Without sounding like a hypocrite I agree but ONLY within this context.  Tools should be standards compliant but allow for flexibility that is encountered with the unknown.

Again, when I started this thread (which is a hot thread by the number of views it has recorded so far) the objective was UML 1.4 compliance.

Communication cannot be left open to interpretation.   Engineers who construct bridges are held accountable to following engineering standards.  Building Architects and Engineers are held to standards.  Open interpretation of notation is not implicit but explicit and it must be.

Case in point.  Software constructed for an X-ray machine for calibration required the machine descend to the bed level and ascend a specified height for calibration.  Great, the program was constructed but a fatal flaw was missed.  The program faild to account for an operator's errant command with someone lying on the bed.

What were the requirements for the software?  What was the notation used to model the software?  Did the model convey an accounting for this condition?  The issue when investigated boiled down to the improper specifications. But Why?  Was it lack of communication?  Was is misinterpretation? Specifications exist to enable clear and concise communication of "something."   POOR EXECUTION OF STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS HINDER.  Not the standard or specification itself.  

However, had the sensor been programmed to expect encountering the bed at a specific distance and if not then abort, the patient might have lived when the sensor detected a solid object at distance X rather than distance Y.

"But I write business software!" You say.  

Again, I come back to communication.  One language.  So far I don't know of anyone that has sued Microsoft for its "bloatware", or "rebootware" or for hiding space hogging pulsating polygons renderings via Easter Egg in Excel.  As Software Engineers and Architects we have been immune to the liability our counterparts at the other end of the spectrum have.  A bridge fails, the Engineer's head is on the block.  

A building collapses, the Engineers's head is on the block.  It seems silly to even ponder the though of getting sued over a that server crashes and causes a load balanced cascaded failure effect because of a bad software design which was poorly communicated via model at design and specification, which subsequently causes a company to loose millions.  

Only because it has not happened...yet.  

So what 'am I rambling on about?  The tool should be UML 1.4 compliant but allow the Engineer or Architect enough latitude to violate the rules when professional experience and judgement dictate.  So in this I see your point.  

But freedom does not negate the necessity of, or compliance with standards.  By definition a specification is "a detailed, exact statement of particulars."  The UML is a specification and not open to ones own interpretation.    

Iron sharpens Iron!  These comments are valuable and insightful.  

Steve, thanks for responding!  Hopefully I have not offended you or anyone else, as it is not my intent.  


Rusty

7

General Board / Re: UML 1.4

« on: February 17, 2002, 11:47:34 pm »

Alan, Philip,

Your comments are interesting.  Let me restate that this tool is a consultants dream!  It is part of my toolkit.

Did you know that the mapping of the human genome was accomplished using UML and the notation of choice, because no other notation could handle the complexity of the task?

But I have to disagree on some points that have been stated herein.  Many architects are purests.  We have to be!  We are and should consider ourselves akin to our mechnical counterparts who have had thousands of years of experience to draw on; and who have a drafting standard notation.  When you are designing a building you do not want your blueprints in many different notations and conflicting semantics.  This is disasterous.   Yet for years now our profession of software design has accepted just that.  

Properly communicating complex relationships, structures, etc., in large and small corporations must be governed by standards must be top priority and key.  

I cannot have a Group A producing diagrams in one version of UML and another group in a more recent version and arguing over semantics.  I have been there myself.  More recent versions clean up the shortcoming of previous versions just like software; and are therefore more desirable.  Where a previous version of UML fell short the latest version should make up for it; and just recently I DID watch a manger get fired for purchasing alot of Rational product and not getting penetration because developers were opting for Together J and Describe due to simplicity and UML 1.4 compliance.

I agree that Rose itself has not been easy to use, 1.4 compliant and some other things.  But I work closely with, and have friends at Rational.  They are getting it and future versions will be easier to use and compliant.  Rational ties tool, process, and notation together.  If you examine the new approach to their Unified Process, you will see that Rose is getting overhauled in a big way. They have been getting bad press about Rose for years and they are finally stepping off their high horse and listening to developers.  However this is not the point.

As a consultant and business owner who is an architect, I am mostly a fire fighter.  I also mentor other architects and programmers.  Since happening on EA I use it as my diagramming tool of choice.  I absolutelty love it especially the price!  I have licensed Describe (GD Pro), used Rose extensively, evaluated System Architect by Popkin and others.  Again EA if it embraced (and I believe it must!) UML 1.4, to quote Philip, it "could do some significant damage if it were always fully compliant with the current standard."  

Standards and methodologies are here to make software development faster, cheaper, and have a higher quality.  For too long in this industry we have ignored good business software development practices and relied on PATCHES.   I guarentee you that when I worked on life critical systems, we could not afford miscommunication in the form of a diagram or model.  It is just good and professional to keep up or to make gains to get there...which EA has done.  The most recent version of EA is much better that its previous versions.  

Project success depends on first and foremont good communication, a standard of communication, effective easy to use tools, and a process to implement it all.  Hybrid notation is not a good realization of communication.  

The more compliant EA gets with 1.4 the more it will be adopted by larger organizations.  Tools are part of the triangle of Process, Tools, and Notation.  

On a lighter note, if this comes to pass and I have to purchase EA for 300-3000 dollars because it gets recognition...I'll kick myself!


Now to answer Paul (Sparx):

Mainly the iconization of notational stereotypes.  I would like to se ethe ability to identify boundaries for use cases, and EA brough up to speed on Package, Subsystem, Model, Nested States, Classes, Composite Objects, Composition and Deployment .   However, whatever you get it in EA and I'll use it to the degree I can.  Thanks for responding!!!  

Rusty

8

General Board / UML 1.4

« on: February 14, 2002, 02:25:25 pm »

When do you expect to offer UML 1.4 in EA?  This is the only drawback I see with EA...and I love this tool after many years with Rose...EA wins Hands down in price and ease of use/functionality.

However Rose, System Architect, Describe, Together J, etc. are supporting UML 1.4 a tool that is a UML centric tool that is not up with the Industry current notational version is hard to 1. Use in my job as an Architect for fortune 50 companies and 2. Justify as a purchase within these corporations.  Twice now I have proposed large purchases of EA for a large telecom giant and twice now the UML issue came up.

I realize that you are not a large corporate entity, however, just to let you know, my company spent well over a million dollars licensing Rose.  EA was evaluated and liked by many programmers and also shot down by many because of the UML Notational Version.

I also run a company part time and we are useing EA despite the shortcomings, but it gets harder and harder to justify.

Regards,

Rusty