| Main intention of PackageMerge [message #627029] |
Tue, 14 October 2008 19:33 |
 Timothy Marc
Messages: 547
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi all,
in my department, we had an interesting discussion about the main intention
of the package merge mechanism of uml2. In our case, we want to implement a
metamodel with the "merged" kernel package as the structural foundation for
other packages of the model.
So, is it good modeling style to merge packages into a new package and reuse
the newly created packaged elements within the same model for the definition
of the metamodel? IMHO, that's exactly, what the Superstructure does. But
some voices here in my department point out, that it is not a good style to
reuse the resulting elements of a merged package within the same model.
And another questions: The Infrastructure::abstraction package provides
several small packages for fine-grained reusage to define new metamodels. Is
it good, recommended, possible, bad style, what else, to merge in a first
step only the packages one currently need and, may be later in time, when
the requirements increase, apply another package merge mechanism to the
package, wich was created by the first merge process?
More clearly:
1. First iteration of development process:
Abstraction::elements && Abstraction::Ownership --- merge --->
MyModel::Basic (as a general package for the metamodel)
2. A later iteration, the requirement "Generalization should be provided"
arises:
Abstraction::Super --- merge ---> MyModel::Basic
Sorry, for this long mail, as you can see, i have a sufficient theoretical
knowledge about this topic, but no practical experiences, what method is
more feasible or whether it is applyable at all.
Thx
Timothy
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03297 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
