UML Modeling: Round Trip Engineering

Hi!
Yesterday I worked through and tested the UML Modeling: Developing Applications tutorial. Everything worked awsome and I managed to complete step in the tutorial.
Today, when I started the studio and wanted to play a little more with Round Trip Engineering I found something strange.
If I add an operation to the java-source using the source editor it do not show up in the UML class diagram but if I add an operation to the UML class diagram it shows up in the java-source.
Is it me that is doing anything wrong?
Is this a known issue/bug?
Win XP Professional
Java Studio Enterprise 8 with latest update today.
Sincerely,
// Paul

Paul,
Glad to hear you like the UML tool. Not sure which release/version you are working with so I'll try to cover all the bases hear.
The UML module was released with the Enterprise Pack (early access version I believe), the live roundtrip was still enabled. Then we pulled UML module out of the Enterprise Pack because we needed to do some overhauling of the roundtrip feature and we didn't want to prevent Enterprise Pack from going beta, so now UML is available via the beta update center. This version of UML has the live roundtrip disabled so that code is not generated with every model manipulation and the model is not updated with every source edit. It sounds like this is the version you are working with.
There is a strange scenario where the live roundtrip is unintentionally enabled (live roundtrip should never be enabled... ever - this is not your fault). A bug was filed and I fixed it, but the fix was integrated into a different branch than the one available via the update center. This is because we are about to release Java Studio Enterprise 8.1 and so we did all the bug fixing on that branch and all those fixes will be merged with the UML that is on the update center, probably in the next week or two, but a date has not been decided, yet.
In summary, rest assured that the issue (and many many others) have been addressed, and those fixes will be merged into the version available on the update center very soon.
Please keep the feedback coming on reverse engineering and code generation as we are rebuilding these features from scratch for NetBeans 6.
thanks
craig

Similar Messages

Analysis, Design model, round-trip engineering

ok, here's the point.
We work with the problem domain and develop the analysis model. The analyst at this stage doesn't concern himself with the implementation details, some low-level code patterns and the programming language (well, let's forget for now about C's multiple inheritance and Java's workaround for it). So, when most of the analysis work is done, we end up with major classes (populated only with some basic attribs & behaviour; then, we have a high-level representation of business processes and corresponding activity diagrams. Of course, this model will be refined at a later stage, but for now it will do.
Say, we have the model in a project. Now we move to the design level. More and more details are added to the model, sequence/collaboration diagrams are added, we concern ourselves much more with the detailed class behaviour.
And here's the first question. Should we leave the original high-level diagrams intact and produce separate detailed ones? Generally, they represent the same process, but at a more detailed level. What about duplication of diagrams? Or should we elaborate the existing ones (but then we lose the clear and simple bird-eye view of the problem domain).
After that, we make a decision to implement the system as a set of EJB's. So, we've switch to component modeling at system design. UML model for these components differs quite a lot from a traditional one, so it can be quite painful to refactor the existing interaction diagrams. But do we need to do it? I agree that having <<EJBImplementation>>, <<EJBRealization>> , etc stereotypes displayed in the analysis model is not a nice solution.
Another question - is it a good idea to start a separate project for system design and just import/copy the required pieces from a higher-level design model? Or can we get away with combining all stages in one project file?
Please, read all of the above in the light of round-trip engineering. So, finishing after analysis stage, is not an option, but to lead the whole project to as low level as implementation details.
I'd like to hear from you, some hands-on experience with similar projects, your approaches. Feel free to comment on the flow of events.
Best regards,
Andrew

ok, here's the point.
We work with the problem domain and develop the
analysis model. The analyst at this stage doesn't
concern himself with the implementation details, some
low-level code patterns and the programming language
(well, let's forget for now about C's multiple
inheritance and Java's workaround for it). So, when
most of the analysis work is done, we end up with
major classes (populated only with some basic
attribs & behaviour; then, we have a high-level
representation of business processes and corresponding
activity diagrams. Of course, this model will be
refined at a later stage, but for now it will do.
Say, we have the model in a project. Now we move to
the design level. More and more details are added to
the model, sequence/collaboration diagrams are added,
we concern ourselves much more with the detailed class
behaviour.
And here's the first question. Should we leave the
original high-level diagrams intact and produce
separate detailed ones? Generally, they represent the
same process, but at a more detailed level. What about
duplication of diagrams? Or should we elaborate the
existing ones (but then we lose the clear and simple
bird-eye view of the problem domain).Depends on whether you are concerned about the abstract methodology or more concerned about the implementation methodology.
For full process control, on a large project, you will have a architecture design which will always reflect the target system but has little to do with the implementation design. If the architecture needs to change it means something was "wrong" with it (which could come about due to a change order or a refinement of the specification of the system.) There might be other associated high level documents which occupy the same level - such as the project plan. This would typically be the project initiation phase which occurs before software design starts.
Of course you would keep all of the documents. Just as naturally each version would be checked into the version control system.
>
After that, we make a decision to implement the system
as a set of EJB's. So, we've switch to component
modeling at system design. UML model for these
components differs quite a lot from a traditional one,
so it can be quite painful to refactor the existing
interaction diagrams. But do we need to do it? I agree
that having <<EJBImplementation>>, <<EJBRealization>>
, etc stereotypes displayed in the analysis model is
not a nice solution.I doubt that any reasonable system is going to make the decision to use J2EE in the system design process. That is always going to be a architecture or requirements decision (even if it is implicit.) If not then it suggests that there are probably at least three levels to the design process and the J2EE decision is in the top most layer (maybe there is a "high" and "low" level architecture process.) And architecture design must describe why J2EE was choosen and what if any alternatives were considered.
Again this document will be retained (and checked into version control.)
>
Another question - is it a good idea to start a
separate project for system design and just
import/copy the required pieces from a higher-level
design model? Or can we get away with combining all
stages in one project file?
In the abstract yes.
Why? Because in an ideal design environment, a "high" (system) level design is created by a small very experienced set of developers. Then it is handed off to many junior developers for "low" (detailed) design. That doesn't work if you are using the "same" design. This is only somewhat mitigated by design tools that somewhat support this process (or least last time I checked they didn't support it very well.)
Keep in mind that this is the ideal, and it is unlikely (probability wise) that you are working at or with a company where doing this is feasible much less encouraged.
Please, read all of the above in the light of
round-trip engineering. So, finishing after analysis
stage, is not an option, but to lead the whole project
to as low level as implementation details.
Round trip. You start with the documents that have been checked in. You branch the version control tree or just up the version numbers of the docs (depending on how "deliverables" are being handled) and start over.

Sun Java Studio Enterprise 8 UML Round Trip Engineering Problem on Linux

Hi all,
I know Linux is an unsupported platform but I thought I'd mention that the "Navigate to Source" context menu when trying to generate source from UML is missing.
If you try to work through the "UML Modeling: Developing Applications" tutorial (http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/javatools/jsenterprise/learning/tutorials/jse8/uml_fe.html) on a linux box, everything goes to plan until step 3 "Choose Navigate To Source from the contextual menu" of the "Continuing Development Using Round Trip Engineering" section.
I haven't tested it on Solaris but it definately appears on Windows.
Cheers!
Mike.

I just tried on JDS3 Linux and I was able to complete this tutorial from the beginning to the end without any issue. I tried the Navigate to Source option on all classes from the project tree under the "bankpack" package node and source file for all classes were opened in the source editors. In fact, all UML quickstart tutorials have been tested and working as expected on all platforms including JDS3 Linux.
Which Linux system are you having this problem on?
Which JSE 8 build are you using (look at product line from Help->About, click on Detail tab)?
Are you able to see "Navigate to Source" from the contextual menu for any other class from this tutorial?
As Trey indicated in his response that the source must exist to have this menu option, do you see the corresponding source file generated in the Java project?
Thanks,
--Peter

UML modeling by reverse-engineering a JAVA project

I can't seem to get over a basic hurdle to get started with UML modeling. I open an existing JAVA project. I then start a new project and choose "UML" and "-Platform model by reverse-engineering a JAVA project". Next I give the UML project a name and try to open my existing JAVA project. But the wizard does not show any project!
Appreciate your help.
Phil

UML in JSE8 can reverse engineer all 4 built-in types of Java project defined in IDE. To prove that, I just downloaded apache ant source 1.6.5 from http://ant.apache.org/srcdownload.cgi and successfully reverse engineered it with JSE8.
If you have a project with existing ant script , it's extremely easy, you absolutely don't need to hand-create a java project from scratch to specify source, library dependency etc. Just follow the wizard "create a Java project with existing ant script" to specify your Java project location, the ant script location, and * don't forget * to specify the source location. Any project without source folder specified is not considered a valid candidate for Reverse Engineer, and you won't see it listed under the project chooser in UML wizard when trying to associate the current UML project with a Java project. Please right click to bring up your source project properties to verify if you have source package folder correctly spelled out.
It IS a supported feature, do let us know if you still have troubles to RE your project.

Oracle db ERD round trip engineering

Hello,
Is there a tool for oracle to take a db and have an ERD diagram produced from the db?
I am looking for a tool like mysql workbench but for oracle.
Thanks,
John

For example: CA ERwin Data Modeler
With kind regards
Krystian Zieja

UML modeling for class diagrams, could not generate code for modified diagr

Hi,
I'm using Java studio Enterprise for creating class diagrams and generating code from the UML using round trip engineering. I'm able to create class diagrams and generate code from the diagram. I tried modifying java code for classes and saved it. Now if I try and modify the diagram its not updating the java code associated with it.
Please suggest the workaround or so.
Thanks
Sunita

Maybe the linkage between the source and model class element is broken. Try to expand the class element from the project tree to see if a source file artifact node (under the class that displays the pathname as the name of the node). If not, that's why. Then, the workaround is to manually add the pathname to the java source file. Here are the steps:
- expand the class in question
- select the source file artifact node
- from the properties window on the right side of the ide, enter the exact pathname to the java source file and press the Enter
It should work now.

Why does R/3 have no ABAP UML modelling tools integrated?

I find it strange that SAP tout the benefits of OO programming and ABAP classes, then completely fail to provide a UML round trip modelling tool integrated into the ABAP workbench.
Doesn't this display a lack of foresight on SAPs behalf? I mean, if you are serious about the use of OO software, shouldn't you be serious about providing the framework such as UML modelling tools to facilitate optimal development?
Currently if I design a solution with ABAP objects, I am using Altova UModel to document the solution, but the lack of integration with the ABAP environment means that I am always struggling to keep the code and model in sync.
does anybody have similar views on this? If views are in accordance, couldn't the SDN community try to lobby SAP to provide such a tool?

Hello Anthony
I document my ABAP-OO developments with Altova UModel, too. A colleague recently showed me that the NetWeaver Developer Studio has UML functionality but for Java developments only (where round-trip engineering is already commonplace).
I assume that the problem with ABAP round-trip engineering is the ABAP dictionary. With Java you have the simple data types and the the class hierarchies of Java. In ABAP we also need the dictionary types.
I would appreciate to have such UML tools for ABAP available, yet I do not expect them to become available in the near future.
Regards
Uwe

Round Trip UML Tool

Looking for suggestions for a round trip UML tool. Mainly I'm interested in being able to extract UML diagrams from Java source. Ideally, open source, but I'm open to anything if it's really good.
So far I've found ArgoUML, but the support for reverse engineering UML seems spotty.
I've also heard good things about Together and Rational, but both of those seem very expensive...
Thanks for any thoughts,
Johh

I'd be curious to know your reasons for this, given
that
you seem to have quite a bit of experience.UML diagrams created by humans can sometimes show their intent more clearly than code by obscuring details and isolating the important abstractions. Unfortunately, maintaining that sort of UML diagram is expensive. I find it's cheaper to document the important abstractions and original intent with plain text comments.
There are impedance mismatches between UML and all popular programming languages. This forces automated reverse engineering to either arbitrarily reduce detail across the board or burden the diagrams with trivial details. The purpose of a model is to throw away some information. That's why 1:1 scale maps are not popular. Automated systems aren't smart enough to know which information to throw away.
Also, UML is sort of like Esperanto or Lojban. They might be useful in a pinch, but very few people want to speak them all the time. Automatically translating source to UML loses idiomatic information, and it turns out programming idioms convey a lot of useful information between experienced developers.
It seems to me having UML diagrams for other people's
code is especially useful, and can greatly ease the
process
of coming to understand it. Hence my special interest
in a
good reverse engineering tool. But I like UML for
aiding my
own design as well.I used to like it, but after I became more familiar with OO concepts I found it just slowed me down. Perhaps it is helpful while learning. I'm glad I know it, I just don't use it.

PI 7.1 Message Round Trip

Good day,
From rumors and small talk with fellow Netweaver technical consultants,
I heard that with PI 7.1 - sending message without round trip (sending message from one adapter to second adapter without entering the IS) will possible.
1. Is that true?
2.Where will the mapping take place if necessary?
3.Will our monitoring capabilities will remain (message monitoring,end2end, AFW monitoring)
If any of you experienced with PI 7.1 ,and currently not buried with development work, I'll appreciate you opinion\knowledge.
Regards,
Nimrod.G

Hi,
New highlights for SAP NetWeaver Process Integration 7.1 are:
Enterprise Services Repository as a central storage location for enterprise service definitions and lifecycle management data for all enterprise services
Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI) 3.0compliant services registry for runtime management of enterprise services
Improved support for standards such as Web Service Reliable Messaging (WS-RM), WS Policy, Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML)
Extended support for high volume scenarios
Business Activity Monitoring for process definition of milestone monitoring (event correlation)
Improved SAP NetWeaver Administrator support for central configuration and administration of both mediated and point-to-point scenarios.
XML payload validation
Process editor modeling enhancements: step groups, integrated alert management, configurable parameters
Integration of human interaction (generic user decision)
WS-BPEL 2.0 preview.
Message Packing.
Local Processing in Adapter Engine.
Reusable UDFs.
Lookup function with multiple results.
Regards,
Soumya

Re: (forte-users) Round-trip database design

We have used Erwin quite sucessfully, but it's not cheap.
"Rottier, Pascal" <Rottier.Pascalpmintl.ch> on 02/15/2001 04:51:01 AM
To: 'Forte Users' <forte-userslists.xpedior.com>
cc:
Subject: (forte-users) Round-trip database design
Hi,
Maybe not 100% the right mailing list but it's worth a try.
Does anyone use tools to automatically update the structure of an existing
database?
For example, you have a full database model (Power Designer) and you've
created a script to create all these tables in a new and empty database.
You've been using this database and filling tables with data for a while.
Now you want to do some marginal modifications on these tables. Add a
column, remove a column, rename a column, etc.
Is there a way to automatically change the database without losing data and
without having to do it manually (except the manual changes in the (Power
Designer) model).
Thanks
Pascal Rottier
Atos Origin Nederland (BAS/West End User Computing)
Tel. +31 (0)10-2661223
Fax. +31 (0)10-2661199
E-mail: Pascal.Rottiernl.origin-it.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Philip Morris (Afd. MIS)
Tel. +31 (0)164-295149
Fax. +31 (0)164-294444
E-mail: Rottier.Pascalpmintl.ch
For the archives, go to: http://lists.xpedior.com/forte-users and use
the login: forte and the password: archive. To unsubscribe, send in a new
email the word: 'Unsubscribe' to: forte-users-requestlists.xpedior.com

Hello Pascal,
Forte has classes which might be able to scan the database structure
(DBColumnDesc,etc.). Express use this classes to determine how the
BusinessClass looks like. We use Forte to create the tables,indexes and
constraints. We have the Problem that the above described classes are only
readable but not fillable. The solution for us will be to create our own
classes in
the same manner than existing classes are. So we are able to make updates in
the database structure and maybe able to change the database tables with tool
code. Another reason for us to have the database structure in the
application is the
ability to see the table structure on which the Forte code works always up
to date
with the code. You are always able to compare the structure of the database
with
your businessclasses and able to convert a wrong structure to the correct
structure
with maybe just a little piece of code.
Hope this helps
Joseph Mirwald

Round trips motion with FlexMotion

I am EAGERLY looking for a LabView routine that allows the M-UTM150CC.1 motorized stage (driven through the ESP 100 controller) to perform a choosable number of round trips with the same velocity profile as it already has for one way out (for one way out, I have already the code)
Is the FlexMotion card could solve my problem? How much does it cost?

We bought in 1996 the FlexMotion 1035 (ISA card) which was at that time built by nuLogic, a startup from the MIT. Someone from nuLogic has been employed by National Instruments, I would like to get in touch with him to know what are the differences between the model PCI-7334 you propose me and the above one.
PLEASE answer me SOON because it is PRESSING
The references written on the card are the following:
FM 1035
Solder side L6 Rev-B
Made in U.S.A. 1994
P/N 5200-0005
nuLogic Inc. ECCC4 94 VO 2595
nuMotion BD
BD. COMP side L1 Rev-B

Pictures round-tripped to Elements are correct in Browser but not in Viewer

Hi all,
This is a bit weird. When I edit a photo in Photoshop Elements 10 (and then "save" and thereby send it back to Aperture), the edited photo shows up correctly edited in the Aperture browser, but it's uncorrected in the viewer. I always use the "Split View," and so the corrected photo appears among the thumbnails, but when I click on it, the photo in the viewer doesn't have the PSE corrections! Weird. This worked well for many many months, but now doesn't seem to work. If I close out of Aperture and come back in, the photos are correct in the viewer and the browser. Any ideas? (These are correctly saved -- not "saved as" -- in Photoshop. And it worked well for months. No need to discuss saving and round-tripping.) Thank you!

Mark,
maybe this is caused by this bug:
Aperture 3.2.3: Viewer does not update after editing an image in external editor
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS4237
If not, post back
Regards
Léonie

Trouble with Round trip between Soundtrack Pro 2 and Final Cut Pro 6

I have edited a home movie together. I then have sent the sequence to Color for grading and then after completing the Color changes and Rendering. I sent it back to Final Cut Pro. It starts out working fine but during the transfer process it stops at somewhere between 50% and 60%. It is during the "Importing XML Data" phase. It just sits there and does not change and I have to force quit to get out of it. The exact same thing happens when I try to round trip from Soundtrack Pro 2 back to Final Cut Pro. So I am unable to make use of the changes I make in these programs.
This is a round trip process that I have successfully made many times before. Nothing has changed. I am working in Final Cut Studio 2 with the latest updates on an Intel Mac. Any advice on how to remedy this situation would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance.

Thanks.
What's I've been doing is exporting the Soundtrack files as AIFF files, then importing them into Final Cut...
It's working... at least well enough. Still seems harder then just being able to go back and forth between the two applications.
Thanks for the advice.

Round trip to PS CS3 does not show the saved image in Aperture 2.1.1

Good evening everyone; I hope someone can help me to solve this.
I have PS CS3 set as my external photo processing app (exports are PSD 16-bit 300 dpi) in Aperture 2.1.1. When I process the picture in CS3 and then save it(mind you I only SAVE, I do not do SAVE AS) as PSD (or TIFF) Aperture only shows me the original file in preview with the little circle informing me about the round trip to CS3. So the processed file does not show. Instead I only see two identical versions of the same photo.( I mean, I see the master and the version with the little circle).
If I save the work in PS CS3 as jpeg and then import into Aperture, it shows fine. When trying to import the processed and saved PSD and TIFF files, Aperture only shows the original file.
If it helps, I am working on layered pictures (HDR) where I use different parts of different pictures to get wide dynamic range. I export 3 or so photos from Aperture at once to CS3, process them into one, flatten the picture and save it.
And then Aperture just shows me the original file as version.
I have done this before 2.1.1 and it worked. Not sure if I have changed anything that might be causing this.
Thank you for your ideas.

I am sure it is not stacked under the original, unfortunately. Any other tips?
Also, as I mentioned earlier, even if I save the processed file in CS3 as PSD (so I use SAVE AS) and then try to import it into Aperture, it "magically" only shows the orginal (as if it was just importing some layer).

Round trip from Aperture to PS CS3 and back problem

Hi everyone; I hope someone can help me to solve this. I posted it before but the only suggestion I got was to check if the processed photo is not stacked under, which it isn't.
I have PS CS3 set as my external photo processing app (exports are PSD 16-bit 300 dpi) in Aperture 2.1.1. When I process the picture in CS3 and then save it(mind you I only SAVE, I do not do SAVE AS) as PSD (or TIFF) Aperture only shows me the original file in preview with the little circle informing me about the round trip to CS3. So the processed file does not show. Instead I only see two identical versions of the same photo or a layer from CS3.( I mean, I see the master and the version with the little circle).
If I save the work in PS CS3 as jpeg and then import into Aperture, it shows fine. When trying to import the processed and saved PSD and TIFF files, Aperture only shows the original file.
If it helps, I am working on layered pictures (HDR) where I use different parts of different pictures to get wide dynamic range. I export 3 or so photos from Aperture at once to CS3, process them into one, flatten the picture and save it.
And then Aperture just shows me the original file as version. I really need your help with this.
I have done this before 2.1.1 and it worked. Not sure if I have changed anything that might be causing this.
Thank you for your ideas.

Ernie, the photos are captured by Canon XTi so they are in CR2, saved to my internal HD and then "loaded" to Aperture as referenced files.
As for PS CS3, I am not sure whether I have it set up as a scratch disk or not (if you could let me know where to check it).
Yesterday, I did yet another round trip and found out that when I finish in PS and SAVE and CLOSE, then the file shows up properly in Aperture. What I was doing before was I SAVEd if but did not close. Then I would SAVE AS in PS to make sure I have some kind of a version of the file if the one in Aperture fails to work.
So it seems I cracked it but I would still like to hear what you have to say, or anyone for that matter. It seems to me that the SAVE-CLOSE is crucial.

UML Modeling: Round Trip Engineering

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for