Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:33:27 -0400
The term "A mapping to B" can be understood to mean either "given A,
generate B" or given B, generate A".
I think that the only UML construct that cannot be directly translated into
corresponding Ada code is multiple inheritance. Richard's note indicates
some Ada code features that have no corresponding UML construct.
> From: AdaWorks[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, 11 October, 1999 12:55 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CACM Ada comment
> Mapping UML to Ada is an intersting notion. It would seem that
> UML can map to most of the Ada language but not all of it. UML
> seems to have been designed mainly for C++ with features added
> later to support Java.
> Though I am no expert on UML, it seems that Ada is richer in composition
> mechanisms than one finds in the modeling notation of UML. For example,
> Ada's child library units, particularly private child library units, do
> not seem to fit well into the UML notation. There are other little
> differences that seem to be outside the modeling capability of UML. For
> example, generic formal signature packages such as,
> -- type and operations parameters
> package Signature end Signature;
> use for instantating generic formal package parameters.
> Is there a mechanism in UML that corresponds to semantics of the protected
> I seem to recall that Ed Colbert was working on something that would
> UML notation to provide a more complete mapping to Ada.
> Richard Riehle
> [log in to unmask]
> AdaWorks Software Engineering
> Suite 30
> 2555 Park Boulevard
> Palo Alto, CA 94306
> (650) 328-1815
> FAX 328-1112