UML classdiagrams are a standard graphical notation to describe classes and their relationships.
Is there a standard textual notation (DSL) to describe the same? Don't say XMI or EMF;-)
I think you could do that with Corba IDL and use Interfaces for classes, but this is somehow too much on the Corba side. You could use Java Interfaces, but this is too Java.
Background of my question is writing generators. I think it is easier to write a generator based on the syntax tree of a DSL than to parse a graphical notation. A graphical notation first has to be translated into a syntax tree (that would be the same you'd get from the corresponding DSL). I think translating a graphical notation into the syntax tree is harder than to translate a DSL (where you can use ANTLR).
You've got the answer already, but I'd like to clarify. There is a standard notation, it's called HUTN, and nobody uses it.
Check this complete list of textual notations to describe UML models. Btw, the reasons to create one of these tools (in particular TextUML) can be find here.
It is no coincidence that UML separates abstract and concrete syntax.
Tying up code generation to a user-facing notation is a bad idea. Tools (code generators) and people (modelers) have totally distinct needs, so no single syntax can serve both audiences well. Not to mention you lose the ability of applying the same code generator to models created using different notations.
TextUML is a concrete syntax tailored to modelers. XMI is a much better notation for tools, and the UML2 object model makes it very easy to handle.
Rafael
http://abstratt.com/blog
No standard notation to my knowledge but a good summary of options here.
hth.
Related
Hi the following post says there is "built in dependency injection" in scala
"As a Scala and Java developer, I am not even slightly tempted to
replace Scala as my main language for my next project with Java 8. If
I'm forced to write Java, it might better be Java 8, but if I have a
choice, there are so many things (as the OP correctly states) that
make Scala compelling for me beyond Lambdas that just adding that
feature to Java doesn't really mean anything to me. Ruby has Lambdas,
so does Python and JavaScript, Dart and I'm sure any other modern
language. I like Scala because of so many other things other than
lambdas that a single comment is not enough.
But to name a few (some were referenced by the OP)
Everything is an expression, For
comprehensions (especially with multiple futures, resolving the
callback triangle of death in a beautiful syntax IMHO), Implicit
conversions, Case classes, Pattern Matching, Tuples, The fact that
everything has equals and hashcode already correctly implemented (so I
can put a tuple, or even an Array as a key in a map), string
interpolation, multiline string, default parameters, named parameters,
built in dependency injection, most complex yet most powerful type
system in any language I know of, type inference (not as good as
Haskell, but better than the non existent in Java). The fact I always
get the right type returned from a set of "monadic" actions thanks to
infamous things like CanBuildFrom (which are pure genius). Let's not
forget pass by name arguments and the ability to construct a DSL.
Extractors (via pattern matching). And many more.
I think Scala is
here to stay, at least for Scala developers, I am 100% sure you will
not find a single Scala developer that will say: "Java 8 got lambdas?
great, goodbye scala forever!". Only reason I can think of is compile
time and binary compatibility. If we ignore those two, all I can say
is that this just proves how Scala is in the right direction (since
Java 8 lambdas and default interface methods and steams are so clearly
influenced)
I do wish however that Scala will improve Java 8
interoperability, e.g. support functional interfaces the same way. and
add new implicit conversions to Java 8 collections as well as take
advantage to improvements in the JVM.
I will replace Scala as soon as
I find a language that gives me what Scala does and does it better. So
far I didn't find such a language (examined Haskell, Clojure, Go,
Kotlin, Ceylon, Dart, TypeScript, Rust, Julia, D and Nimrod, Ruby
Python, JavaScript and C#, some of them were very promising but since
I need a JVM language, and preferably a statically typed one, it
narrowed down the choices pretty quickly)
Java 8 is by far not even
close, sorry. Great improvement, I'm very happy for Java developers
that will get "permission" to use it (might be easier to adopt than
Scala in an enterprise) but this is not a reason for a Scala shop to
consider moving back to Java." [1]
what is exactly the built in dependency injection in scala?
It's not a discrete language feature. I think the author was referring to the fact that Scala's feature set is flexible enough to support a number of techniques that could be said to accomplish DI:
the cake pattern, building on the trait system
the Reader monad, building on higher-kinded types
DI through currying, building on functional techniques
using implicit class parameters, building on Scala's concept of implicits
in my own project, we accomplish DI by requiring function values in the class constructor explicitly
This diversity is rather emblematic of Scala. The language was designed to implement a number of very powerful concepts, mostly orthogonally, resulting in multiple valid ways to solve many problems. The challenge as a Scala programmer is to understand this breadth and then make an intelligent choice for your project. A lot of times, that choice depends on what paradigms are being used internally to implement your components.
I'm currently working with Java to write a program that does an EAI between two applications. One application comes with HL7, which I parse with HAPI. So I get a Java object structure. I want to transform this structure to my own structure that I want to use to generate XML files with JAXB after doing some other work.
In my opinion my current solution is not very nice, because the source code gets very complex:
public NaturalPerson convertPID(PID pid) {
NaturalPerson person = new NaturalPerson();
NameNaturalPerson personsname = new NameNaturalPerson();
name.setFamilyName(pid.getPatientName().getFamilyName().getValue());
...
}
Which language is an appropiate Language to do such type mappings? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JVM_languages)
I think Java is not the best language for doing that. I don't have much time for learning, so I need a language that is easy to learn and which has a low begin-of-learning-peek. I already have some experience in the functional languages Haskell and F#. First I thought Groovy would be a good language, but then I found other opinions that suggest Scala.
Which language would you suggest for doing such type mappings?
Did you look at Dozer? It is a Java library that recursively copies data from one Java object to another. There are several ways to configure the mapping:
XML
Java API providing a DSL
Java annotations
Data in forms of Maps and Vectors handling are superbly handled on the JVM using Clojure
See all the core functions available and this SO Question on which tutorials are good to learn Clojure.
i need to implement the shift reduce parser in my college ,i need to know how can i implement it using java
is there is any implementations already .... or any sample one
is there any implementations already?
Unless the task is to actually practice writing it yourself, I'd recommend using a parser generator such as JavaCUP or ANTLR. (I used JavaCUP in one of my compiler courses, but perhaps you have a different scope in your course.)
Hello i often develop JTableModels in which some cells must contain the result of apliying a certain simple mathematical formula. This formulas can have:
Operators (+,-,*,/)
Number constants
Other cell references (which contains numbers)
Parameters (numbers with a reference name like "INTEREST_RATE")
I often resolve it making a little calculator class which parses the formula, which syntax i define. The calculator class uses a stack for the calcs, and the syntax uses allways a Polish notation.
But the Polish notation is unnatural for me and for my users. So my question is...
Is there a lib which runs in 1.5 jvm's and can handle my requeriments and use normal notation (with brackets, i don't know the name of this notation style) for formulas?
P.D it's supposed that the formulas are allways syntax correct and i can preprocess the numbers that are not constants to provide their values
Have you thought about the benefits of JSR-223 ? in a few words, this spec allows Java developers to integrate with great ease dynamic languages and their parsers. Using such parser, your need for defining a parser transforms into the need for defining an internal DSL, which resolves into creating simply a good API, and letting your user choose wether they prefer Javascript/Groovy/Scala/WTF syntax they happen to prefer.
Try JEP.
You can define new variables to the parser hence it can contain reference names like "INTEREST_RATE".But you have to define it before hand.
As for cell references you will have to extract the number's and edit the expression accordingly or probably there might be some options which I'm not yet aware of.
If you can't use Java 6 and its scripting support then have a look at the Apache Bean Scripting Framework (BSF). From that page:
... BSF 3.x will run on Java 1.4+, allowing access to JSR-223 scripting for Java 1.4 and Java 1.5.
i released an expression evaluator based on Dijkstra's Shunting Yard algorithm, under the terms of the Apache License 2.0:
http://projects.congrace.de/exp4j/index.html
There's a commercial tool called formula4j which may be useful to some.
It has no direct help for cell references. You would have to handle those yourself, and translate the cell references into values.
Is there a standard representation for typed java collections in UML2? I am working on a class diagram and would like to avoid Java syntax, when using something like Map as type for a class attribute.
- foo : Map<Integer, String>
UML2 has parameterized classes, and the syntax is in fact pretty much the same as Java's - both Java and the UML spec were inspired by the C++ syntax here.
I'm against using too much design documents to program. Documents are only for communicating ideas, IMHO.
So if you need Java Types for your UML chances are:
you are reverse engineering: then Java Syntax will be fine
you are trying to program trhough UML: don't do it. Program in Java. Use UML only for object relation and collaboration
if the types are primitive: it's likely you don't need to express internal data structures in UML. You only need to express what's the responsibility of the class.
if the types are objects: ok, maybe it's the point... I'm not sure, but try to use the minimum...