I am trying to reverse engineer java code in starUML. But i am getting Unrecoverable Parse error. please tell me reason for this?
You need to swap to a new tool for reverse engineering.
The best tool is EclipseUML omondo but really too expensive. A trick is to download the old zip 30 days evaluation build at: http://www.uml2.org/eclipse-java-galileo-SR2-win32_eclipseUML2.2_package_may2010.zip
Just unzip and it works immediately for 30 days. This is standalone build including Eclipse and all needed plugins.
You don't need to buy the tool just make your reverse engineering with this evaluation bundle and copy into your documentation what you need.
STAR-Uml is quite old an probably unmaintained. I guess your code uses new features like generics and Star-UML cannot parse them.
The "Unrecoverable Parse error" occurs due to Star UML not able to support Generics in the Java code.
Star UML doesn't support Java Annotations, try to do reverse engineering after removing the annotations in the code.
Related
Is it a must to know Groovy to start learning Ofbiz? The one book i can find is for version 4 of ofbiz and it uses Beanshell. I don't know if later versions of ofbiz have added support for groovy.
Objective: to create workflows as necessary.
Thanks.
EDIT: Found this. From what i understand, one can use any compliant Java scripting language.However, Groovy will be supported OOTB. (Groovy is not just a scripting language, but it is one of the roles)
Later versions have added support for Groovy.
AFAIK, you can still use Beanshell if you want
No, you shouldn't, unless you want use not java but groovy to develop something - e.g, event, service - for OFBiz.
If you familiar with java, that's enough for you to read and understand the source code written in groovy, and it's enough in most case to write some simple in-line groovy script used in OFBiz.
"Know groovy", it's nice-to-have but not must to "start learning OFBiz".
Groovy is used a lot in screen actions, which is the data preparation code that is part of generating UI output. There is a lot of code in the project like this.
It can also be used to implement services and request events (used for processing input), and is a popular tool for custom extensions to OFBiz even though not used a lot in OFBiz itself.
As stated in other answers if you know Java it's easy to read most Groovy code (some closure syntax can be confusing at first), but it's worth learning about more to reduce code size and effort, and make your code cleaner and easier to maintain. In other words, Groovy has a lot of extensions beyond plain Java that are very useful, especially for business logic in applications like those built with Apache OFBiz.
As a case in point, the next generation framework based on the ideas in OFBiz (Moqui Framework, www.moqui.org) is written largely in Groovy and supports Groovy for everything whereas OFBiz also uses JUEL for expressions (and even Beanshell still in a couple places). I should note that both frameworks support a number of other scripting languages for business logic if you have other strong preferences, but it is nice to standardize on one so that developers have less to learn and can more easily work with existing business logic and (as applicable) framework code.
What is a good UML or ReverseEngineering Language for Visual C++ 6.0 ?
I have to build upon another guys code that is greater than 50K lines and tons of classes.
He has little to no documentation. I need to produce a map and see how everything intertwines.
I am looking for software package to read in the project code and produce a map of the classes and showing how things relate.
Thanks
I have use Poseidon UML (http://www.visual-paradigm.com/solution/freeumltool/?src=google&kw=UML&mt=b&net=g&plc=&gclid=CNnmsMr9w6sCFQhrgwod9GFy5w). I also like Rational (http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/769.html)
Your attempt to document the C++ may fail as UML has trouble with specific implementations. You may get an approximation.
I also like LePus3 (http://www.lepus.org.uk/) which is not UML but it seems to reverse engineer better.
Hey I'm interested in this topic too, so did a little search:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa140255(v=office.10).aspx
Does anyone have experience working with language workbench tools such as Xtext, Spoofax, and JetBrains' MPS? I'm looking to try one out and am having a hard time finding a good comparison of the different tools. What are the pros and cons of each?
I'm looking to build DSLs that generate python code, so I'm especially interested to hear from people who've used one of these tools with python (all three seem pretty Java-focused... why is that?). The DLSs are primarily for my own use, so I care less about building a really pretty IDE than I do about it being KISS to define the syntax and write the code generator. The ability to type-check / do static analysis of the DLSs would be pretty cool too.
I'm a little afraid of getting far down a path, hitting a wall, and realizing that all my code is in a format that can't be ported to anything else -- is that a risk with these tools? MPS in particular seems a little scary since as I understand it you don't really generate text-based syntaxes but rather build specialized editors for ASTs.
Markus Voelter does a pretty good job comparing those three in se-radio and Software ArchitekTOUR podcasts.
The basic idea is, that Xtext is most used, therefore most stable and documented, and it is based on popular Eclipse platform and modeling ecosystem - EMF which surrounds it. On the other hand it is parser based and uses ANTLR internally, which means the kind of grammars you can define is limited and languages cannot be combined easily.
Spoofax is an academic product with least adoption of those three. It is also parser based, but uses its own parser generator internally which allows language combinations.
Jetbrains MPS is projection based, which gives much freedom to language designer and allows combinations of languages. *t also has solid support. Drawback might be the learning curve.
None of these tools is strictly Java focused as target language for code generators. Xtext uses Xpand templates, which are plain text. I don't really know how code generation in Spoofax works. MPS has its base language, which is said to be subset of Java, but there are different alternatives.
I personally use Xtext because of its simplicity and maturity, but those strong limitations given by its design make it not a very future proof choice.
I have chosen XText in the same case two weeks ago, but I don't know anything about Spoofax.
My first impression - Xtext is very simple and productive.
I have made my first realife(but very simple) project in 30 minutes, I have generated a graphviz dot graph and html report.
I don't like MPS because I prefer plain text source and destination files.
There are other systems for doing this kind of thing. If your goal is building tools, you don't necessarily have to look to an IDE with an integrated tool; sometimes you can find better tools that have focused on utility rather than IDE integration
Consider any of the pure program transformation tools:
TXL (practical, single paradigm)
Stratego (Spoofax before it was transplanted into Eclipse)
Rascal (research, very nicely designed in many ways)
DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit (happens to be mine; commercial; used to do heavy duty DSL/conventional langauge analysis and transformation including on C++)
These all provide good mechanisms for defining DSLs and transforming them.
What really matters is the support machinery for carrying out "life after parsing".
I 've experimented for a couple of days with Xtext and while the tool looks promising I was eventually put off by the tight integration with the Eclipse ecosystem and the pain one has to go through just to solve what should be given hassle-free out of the box: a headless run of the code generator you implemented. See here for some of the minutiae one has to go through (and it's not even properly documented on the Xtext web site but rather on a blog, meaning its an ad-hoc patch that could very well break on the next release).
Will take another look in half a year to see if there has been any improvement on this front.
Take a look at the Markus Völter's book. It does a very comprehensive comparison of these 3 technologies.
http://dslbook.org
XText is very well maintained but this doesn't mean it's problem-less. Getting type-system, scoping and generation running isn't as easy as advertised.
Spoofax is scannerless, (simplifying grammar composition). Not that well documented, but seems complete.
MPS is projectional. A pro for language composition and con for editing. Supports multiple editors for an AST and will soon even support a nice diagram editor. Base language documentation isn't that good. Typesystem, scoping, checking is very well handled. Model to model transformations are done by the solver. My colleagues using it complain about model to text languages. (My opinion M2M wasn't that intuitive either.)
Years ago Microsoft had the OSLO project. MGrammar and especially Quadrant were very promising. It was possible to represent your model in table, form, text or diagram view. But suddenly they've cancelled the project (and perhaps shot the people working on it)
Perhaps today the best place to compare different language workbenches is http://www.languageworkbenches.net/ and there http://www.languageworkbenches.net/past-editions/ shows how a set of Language Workbenches implement a similar kind of task: a dsl for a particular domain.
Update 2022: as links were broken and newer articles on the topic are written see the site referred above at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160324201529/http://www.languageworkbenches.net/
References to article reviewing language workbenches include: 1) State of the art: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-02654-1_11 and 2) Empirical evaluation: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/706841/filename/Evaluation_of_Modeling_Tools_Adaptation.pdf
Does anyone have any experience with the JetBrains Meta Programming System? Is MPS better than, say, developing a DSL in Ruby?
I don't have any personal experience with MPS, but it was mentioned on the recent episode of Herding Code with Markus Völter. Here's my understanding. MPS is a projection editor which means, instead of parsing and editing text, you are directly editing the underlining language data structure. As Markus mentions, MPS allows you to define your own language but you can also introduce new language concepts into existing languages. For example, you can add a new keyword to Java in a matter of minutes. MPS blurs the lines between internal and external DSLs and, with this, you get static typing and tool support which you wouldn't get when developing a DSL with a dynamic language like Ruby.
I work for JetBrains. I led the MPS project for several years, and now I am working on another project which is also completely written in MPS. According to my experience, MPS is worth using :-)
The answer to your question depends on many things. If you have Ruby based system, or want to create a language quickly, Ruby based internal DSL might be the best choice. If you want to generate Java, and have time to learn MPS, MPS might be the best case. You might also consider systems like XText, etc, which are middle ground between Ruby based DSLs and MPS.
MPS is an interesting beast and has a very huge potential. The idea is simply fantastic:
Inside an IDE (MPS) the user defines more or less visually his DSL(s)
the IDE allows to generate not just the language itself (the runtime or what it does), but also the "tool" aka a more or less full blown IDE, that he or other users can use to edit that new language.
That being said, unfortunately at least for the actual available MPS versions, Jetbrains failed to deliver the above(at least for me) because:
- it is very very hard and complicated to use - like it would not have been made by the authors of the easy to use IntelliJ.
- there are just too many concepts and "ways" the user needs to learn before it's able to do something useful, and still one gets the feeling of tapping into the dark.
- the IDE won't generate an IDE for you but something inside MPS too, a "Cell Based Editor" only (as of this version).
I tried MPS several times (cause the concept is so wonderful and promising), but unfortunately as of this moment I wasn't able to do something useful with it.
I might be to stupid for MPS, but in the time I was just figuring out basic about MPS, I was able to deliver fully blown usable Groovy based DSL.
I'm still following MPS's evolution, and hope that one day will deliver what did initially promised, since it's such a fantastic idea.
Macros in common lisp object system CLOS can alter the syntax quite dramatically, MPS is pretty similar to ANTLR, but it comes with a graphical editor. However MPS does not appreciate code fragmenting beyond compile and runtime and hence both MPS and ANTLR convolve around static metaprogramming problems. You still can't create constructs that will accept an arbitrary number of sub-construct arguments like Monadics, eg; a list comprehension builder that takes an arbitrary number of filters and list generators. To make that possible you need to programmatically alter the raw AST. More experienced Lispers can probably point out other transformations that can't be done.
I agree that documentation has been an issue for beginners when learning MPS. This was certainly true when the previous post was written (2010). Having experienced this first-hand, and finally having succeeded in understanding the system, I wrote The MPS Language Workbench (volumes I and II) to help smooth the learning curve. Feedback I get from readers is that the books are sufficient to help you get started (Volume I) and learn more advanced aspects of the MPS platform (Volume II).
Regarding the answer to the original question. Yes, I believe MPS has key advantages compared to developing a DSL in Ruby or Groovy. The reason is that as a language designer you
Have much better control over all aspects of the language,
The languages you build with MPS can include graphical notations and user interface elements, which make them a hybrid between a user interface and a text DSL script/program,
MPS helps migrate programs as you evolve your language (e.g., refactoring or other changes to the language can propagate to the end-users of the languages, using automatic DSL script/program migrations).
You can see a good example of DSL built with MPS in the MetaR project.
Why would I choose to use Groovy when I could use Jython or Jruby? Does the language provide any inherent advantages to make up for the fact that Jython and Jruby skills are applicable to their parent languages outside of the JVM?
Keep in mind that I purposely keeping this question generic, but if there are any advantages that exist in a particular domain, please don't hesitate to describe them.
EDIT
To clarify, If I write some code in Jruby, I can now, in some cases, move that code outside of the JVM if need be, or at the very least I have gained a better understanding of Ruby. Whereas Groovy skills are applicable only when using a language that just exists inside the JVM. Jython and Jruby have this built in advantage, what does Groovy have to make up for this disadvantage?
If Groovy doesn't have any advantages that you've found, and you would suggest just using Jython or Jruby, let me know.
Edit 2
Thanks everyone for all the answers, most of them make the same point, Groovy integrates slightly better with Java then Jython or Jruby.
Follow up
Using Netbeans 6.5 as my IDE I have found that Groovy to integrates better with Java projects then Jruby. I am not sure if lack of integration is a failing of Jruby or Netbeans. But after using it for alittle Groovy definitely seems to have a leg up.
I've done pretty extensive development in Ruby and Groovy (as well as a little Jython using Grinder as a load testing tool).
Of the 3, I prefer Groovy the most. I like the closure syntax the best and I think that it has the tightest integration in how it works with other java classes on the JVM. It's been a little while since I last used JRuby, but importing Java classes and working with the classloader in JRuby didn't feel as clean to me.
The fact that Groovy is also essentially a superset of Java means that the huge population of Java programmers out there will have a quicker uptake time in picking Groovy up over Ruby/JRuby. They can start programming it like it's Java and slowly start inserting idomatic groovy as they pick it up.
More to the point of what you're asking, I think that another advantage of Groovy is that the language that you go to when you want to optimize something is almost the exact same syntax, it's Java. If you're working in the Ruby or Python worlds, you're going to have to go to either C which is a big shift or Java, which is also quite different than those languages. Programming in Groovy tends to help keep your Java skills somewhat sharp as well.
If you have particular access to a Ruby or Python infrastructure, or a team that has familiarity with those kind of environments, then I could see choosing one of those other languages.
Really, all 3 of them are very nice languages and what you pick should depend more on the problem that you're trying to fix and the resources that you have available to you. Once you've become proficient in one dynamic language, picking up a second or a third is much easier.
I would say if you need to mix Java with Jruby/Groovy, go with Groovy. As everybody said, Groovy has tighter Java integration.
But as far as the language implementation goes, I prefer the Ruby language over Groovy, the language revolves around itself, in Groovy there are some hacks that are inherent to the implementation itself (just watch a Grails stacktrace vs. a Rails stacktrace and you'll see what I mean).
I highly recommend seeing Neal Ford's comparison of Groovy and JRuby
I think Dick Wall gave a very good summary of the differences between these three on the Java Posse podcast (#213, about 34:20 in) ...
"JRuby was designed to make programmers happy ... it's a programming language developer's choice; Python has very strong roots in simplicity and education; Groovy is aimed squarely at being the choice for Java developers ... it's a very familiar environment for Java ... with support for annotations".
In terms of moving the language outside of the JVM, I don't think the Java runtime imposes much of an overhead -- it's a simple install, and you need to set some environment variables -- but it does provide a number of benefits including a mature runtime which has been highly optimised, and a large set of libraries. The JRuby team are now reporting better performance than the native MRI. http://blog.headius.com/2008/08/twas-brillig.html
I've only had experience with Jython and Groovy. The biggest disadvantage with Jython, at the moment, is that the latest release recommended for production (2.2.1) has a feature set that "roughly corresponds to that of Python-2.2" (Jython FAQ). There is a beta implementing what I assume is Python 2.5, which is now a version behind. Don't know if the same can be said for JRuby.
I don't know why you should choose Groovy because I don't know your background. If you are a Java developer Groovy feels more similar to your current language then JRuby or Jython. Groovy combines the best of Java, the language, Java, the platform, and Ruby the language.