Title: Message
Sounds
like we should raise an issue and chat about it there.
Martin.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Rowley
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 8:54
PM
To: Jeffrey A. Estefan;
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:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:30
PM
To:
Subject: [sca-assembly] SCA Visual
Modeling "Standard?"
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
