> these days, Christian Seiler asked a question about > stereotype collisions in the Java cartridge. He wanted to > generate Java interfaces from UML models (using the > <<Service>> stereotype) and did not want that the code > generation of services by other cartridges was triggered. > However, he wanted to make that decision on a class by class basis. > > My question today: I can imagine that this is a common case: > A user wants services generated with a certain flavor (EJB, > Hibernate or > Spring) and *additionally* wants simple Java interfaces and > their implementations, possibly using another stereotype. So, > wouldn't it be good if we used another stereotype in the Java > cartridge? > > I know this question is critical because changing the > stereotype would possibly render old models temporarily unusable. > > What do you think?
You could also leave the service stereotype as it is and add new stereotypes for modelling simple interfaces and classes. The interface stereotype doesn't even need to create any implementation classes (in contrast to the service stereotype). This doesn't break any existing models. Additionally (but this is a different feature) it could still make sense to be able to address cartridges on a class base, e.g. by using some tagged values @andromda.core.cartridge.exclude=Spring and/or @andromda.core.cartridge.include=Java ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ Andromda-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/andromda-user
