Re: [regrep] Final draft recommendations for CC's and Registry -UML/UMM Profile for CCTS

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

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
***********