[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-assembly] SCA Visual Modeling "Standard?"
I’m not a UML expert, but I believe
that UML’s concept of a component maps to SCA’s concept of an “implementation”,
not to SCA’s components. For example, in UML, could a single Java
class be represented as multiple components in one component diagram (each
configured differently), as can be done in SCA? Michael From: Jeffrey
A. Estefan [mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov] Martin & Mike, I would like to know why an visual modeling
industry standard such as OMG UML 2 was not used (and currently not being
used) to represent SCA artifacts; specifically, SCA Component and SCA
Composite diagrams. It seems a no-brainer to leverage the UML 2
component diagram to represent SCA components and UML 2 composite structure
diagrams to represent SCA composites. The current diagram formats used in
all SCA specs from Open SOA (and now under the auspices of OASIS) seem to use
custom diagram semantics to represent services, references, and properties when
UML 2 provided and required interfaces and the use of ports would suffice just
fine for both SCA components and composites. I ask because there is probably some history to this
decision and since I did not participate in development of the Open SOA specs,
I'm curious as to why an industry standard such as UML 2 was not used and if it
is worth considering for use in the OASIS version of these specs;
particularly, since these are architecture-centric artifacts. Regards... - Jeff Estefan, JPL |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]