[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Final draft recommendations for CC's and Registry -UML/UMM Profile for CCTS
Anders: Sure - XMI probably is the best choice we have for model a interchange format, but it is a lot larger than a comparable binary file would be for storing persistent information about the same model. If you used XMI exclusively, it would take up a lot more space on your users machines and take a lot longer to parse, load. I think most of the UML tool vendors have it right -> they use binary files and allow the users the chance to build and export XMI renditions. Duane Anders W. Tell wrote: > Duane Nickull wrote: > >> XMI would be notoriously innefficient as a storage mechanism for UML >> projects. > > > Could you elaborate on this ? Most UML tools use XMI based formats so > it must be usable. What are your concerns? > > /anders > -- *********** Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/ Chair - OASIS eb SOA TC - http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ebsoa ***********
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]