[news.eclipse.modeling.mdt.uml2] Re: Question about extending classes wi

["James Bruck" <jbruck@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Vlad,

In terms of profiles and stereotypes, I wanted to put your mind at ease 
(hopefully).   I was speaking with Bran Selic (former OMG chair of UML) 
about the possibility of profiles "going away" (or changing) and this is 
what he replied:

-------------------
I would not put too much stock in such discussions, since there is far too 
much vested into profiles at the moment. I doubt that anyone has the 
resources to redo the dozen or so OMG adopted profiles or the hundreds of 
user-defined ones. Even Microsoft now view UML as a family of languages, 
that is, as a foundation for constructing more specific languages. Profiles 
are the current mechanism by which one produces those more specific 
languages.

......

 The more likely scenario is a redesigned profile mechanism based on a 
somewhat refactored UML.

The MOF variant is available now, so there is nothing new there.

------------------------------

I've been following the uml-roadmap mailing list at the OMG and it would 
seem that there is a lot on the table in terms of possible changes for UML 
but such changes would take a while (years probably) to make their way into 
a specification, if we can predict future pace based on the pace of change 
in the past.

I believe Kenn's comments are accurate (as always ;) )

Cheers,

- James.

p.s. thanks for the kind words about the UML2 project.  I know that Kenn has 
invested a lot of sweat in making the UML2 project what it is today.



"Vlad Varnica" <varnica@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:31cc9e8f2c7ea5d14c99636cd478aabd$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Kenn,
>
> We hope that stereotype mechanism will not be changed because this could 
> be a problem for our existing users. Imagine if you develop a military, 
> finance or other projects. The development and use of the project could be 
> over 10 years. If you permanently change the EclipseUML2 plugin model this 
> model duration is a lot reduced. One of the goal of UML modeling is to be 
> independent of short term technologies. For example to allow using Eclipse 
> 3.2 for modeling and reuse the same model by just importing it inside the 
> next Eclipse 4.0 or Eclipse 5.0 in 5 years :-)
> A real example today is the use a RSA 7 model develop with Eclipse 3.2 and 
> just import it inside Eclipse 3.4 (see my demo at: 
> http://www.forum-omondo.com/documentation_eclipseuml_2008/eclipseuml2008_dynamic_navigation.html#5._Model_interchange_wiht_RSA_7 )
> This is really cool and show that modeling is important to protect long 
> term companies development investments.
> We hope that the OMG or others UML2 plugins will not forget that projects 
> are already using these stereotype technologies and that a new change 
> could break the upgrade compatibility.
> Let's now talk about my personal dream :-)
> If you look at Java then you can always compile your java 1.4 projects 
> inside Java 1.6. It is always compatible. Inside Eclipse 3.4 how many 
> fantastic plugins are not anymore compatible. We lost so many nice plugins 
> because of permanent EMF/GEF etc.. and Eclipse core upgrades.
> The UML2 project has been the only one to always remain stable and keep 
> backward compatibility in the last few years. This is why EclipseUML2 
> plugin is today the world model standard.
> Please don't break this compatibility !!
>
> Vlad Omondo
>