[news.eclipse.modeling] Re: Should UML be used in an Agile Project ?

[Ed Merks <Ed.Merks@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vlad,

Comments below

Vlad Varnica wrote:
> Ed,
>
> We have a wonderful modeling initiative but it seems as soon as Ecore 
> is not the core of the project then your critics are very disruptive.
I can understand why you might see things that way.  Generally much of 
what I see people doing with UML or XML Schema could just as well be 
done with Ecore.  This is especially true when in fact folks import 
their UML or XML Schema into Ecore.  It might make sense to eliminate 
the extra models in favor of Ecore given that these other forms could be 
produced by export when needed.  That being said, people might have very 
nice proprietary tools for working with UML models, and they'd like to 
keep using those.  That's good for the vendors selling those tools and 
that tickles me pink.  Also, if the XML serialized form is very 
important, using an XML Schema makes a lot of sense and is certainly 
more direct than using extended meta data annotations in Ecore.   So in 
the end, I see there being a range of reasonable possibilities that make 
more or less sense depending on the context.  The world is not black and 
white, though I understand you might think I see it that way.

Also, not all the modeling languages people are using are like 
(isomorphic) to Ecore.  For example, UML state diagrams are not 
supported in any way shape or form by Ecore, so I'd not argue that you 
shouldn't use UML because Ecore does it all.  That's simply not a fact. 
So there are all kinds of cool modeling technologies that make sense to 
use and would make no sense to do with Ecore because it doesn't support 
that.  Domain Specific Languages are an interesting and exciting 
development and again, I'd not argue that we should be using Ecore for 
that (that would be absurd) and I'd also not argue that profiled UML 
should be used, although that's certainly technically feasible.
> This is an unacceptable arrogant behavior !!
I think you've mischaracterized the technical substance of the 
critiques, but I fully understand that you'd consider my attitude to be 
arrogant.  Probably I am being arrogant.
> You can agree or not with our modeling technology vision 
I didn't disagree with your vision.  I disagreed with the black and 
white characterization of what's agile and what isn't.
> but we really don't care because we are hundred times better than all 
> your books :-)
That seems an arrogant statement, but we're all entitled to our opinions.
>