| translating java annotations to an UML repesentation [message #477369] |
Fri, 09 May 2008 14:28  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
While working with the topcased java2uml importer, I was thinking about
the translation of java annotations to UML elements.
After reading
www.st.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/database/publications/data /cepa-kloppenburg-aom05.pdf?id=138
I think representing Java Annotations by Stereotypes is the best way to
go and it feels a kind of "natural". Stereotypes are grouped together in
a Profile, and for example "JSR 181"(Java Annotations for Webservice) is
such a kind of Profile.
Are there any other specifications or thought about it ?
greetings, urs.
|
|
|
|
| Re: translating java annotations to an UML repesentation [message #477372 is a reply to message #477370] |
Sat, 10 May 2008 06:24  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Rafael Chaves wrote:
> Yes, Java annotations map naturally to UML stereotypes.
That's what I feel too.
>
> But unless you want to create a UML model that maps closely to the
> implementation artifacts, you probably won't want to map *every*
> annotation (or class, for that matter).
Of course, @Override, or even better @SuspessWarnings don't carries much
semantic weight in the scope of the model. But as you will need to apply
a profile to the model, to apply stereotypes, only annotations mapping
to stereotypes defined by the applied profiles could be processed.
So the deeps of the mapping is controlled by the applied profiles. This
looks like a clean solution.
greetings, urs.
|
|
|
| Re: translating java annotations to an UML repesentation [message #626549 is a reply to message #477369] |
Fri, 09 May 2008 22:33 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Yes, Java annotations map naturally to UML stereotypes.
But unless you want to create a UML model that maps closely to the
implementation artifacts, you probably won't want to map *every*
annotation (or class, for that matter).
Cheers,
Rafael
urs zeidler wrote:
> While working with the topcased java2uml importer, I was thinking about
> the translation of java annotations to UML elements.
>
> After reading
> www.st.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de/database/publications/data /cepa-kloppenburg-aom05.pdf?id=138
>
> I think representing Java Annotations by Stereotypes is the best way to
> go and it feels a kind of "natural". Stereotypes are grouped together in
> a Profile, and for example "JSR 181"(Java Annotations for Webservice) is
> such a kind of Profile.
>
> Are there any other specifications or thought about it ?
>
> greetings, urs.
>
|
|
|
| Re: translating java annotations to an UML repesentation [message #626551 is a reply to message #477370] |
Sat, 10 May 2008 06:24 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Rafael Chaves wrote:
> Yes, Java annotations map naturally to UML stereotypes.
That's what I feel too.
>
> But unless you want to create a UML model that maps closely to the
> implementation artifacts, you probably won't want to map *every*
> annotation (or class, for that matter).
Of course, @Override, or even better @SuspessWarnings don't carries much
semantic weight in the scope of the model. But as you will need to apply
a profile to the model, to apply stereotypes, only annotations mapping
to stereotypes defined by the applied profiles could be processed.
So the deeps of the mapping is controlled by the applied profiles. This
looks like a clean solution.
greetings, urs.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.08380 seconds
Home