Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cimshop!davidm From: cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: CASE, the Little Red Hen, and Stone Soup Message-ID: Date: 22 Aug 90 20:58:15 GMT References: <28596@athertn.Atherton.COM> <28966@athertn.Atherton.COM> Sender: davidm@cimshop.UUCP Distribution: comp Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California. Lines: 74 In-reply-to: jgautier@deimos.ads.com's message of 21 Aug 90 19:32:08 GMT In article jgautier@deimos.ads.com (Jorge Gautier) writes: In article <28966@athertn.Atherton.COM> dlw@Atherton.COM (David Williams) writes: > It is not a matter of thinking that CASE is one tool or methodology; it > is that when people try and take specific CASE tools and have them work > TOGETHER that everything falls apart. In most circumstances you want all > the tools you have to be able to share data and you hope this happens > via a repository such as the one our company provides as an IPSE. Do you really think that data sharing (and/or "control" sharing for that matter) is sufficient to make disparate tools work together? In neither of these statements has the word "tool" been defined. Without that definition, you can't say one way or the other whether its "sufficient". I think the purposes of the various CASE tools are sufficiently separable that the only thing needed to be shared amongst them is the data dictionary (note: I didn't define data dictionary). > But, most CASE tools are by *design* HOSTILE to data sharing or having > their data stored in an OODB rather than in a native file system > proprietary file/DB format. They are hostile to working with tools of different design. Data sharing by itself won't solve the problem of different design and data semantics. No, they are hostile to working with tools of different *vendors*. With sufficient standards (like, I take it, IPSE) on how tools could supply information in a form that is useful to other tools and with sufficient vendor use of the standards, CASE tools can share a lot of information. Nothing says that *everything* can be shared, but the differences in data semantics is not *that* different. > When surveys are conducted about what people want out of CASE tools an > ultimate goal is for the tools to share (or hey REUSE) their information > as the engineer(s) move thru the lifecycle. Well, what I really want is something that helps me create more software faster and better. But that aside :-), for tools to work together they have to be designed to do so. You might be able to patch them up with tape and glue, but it is usually awkward, error prone and unreliable. Why do some people think that it is easy to "integrate" tools that were designed with different requirements in mind? The point is the requirements. Tools can be designed to work together by working with a central standard (in this case, the data dictionary). The problem is finding such a standard and getting vendors to accept it. Then they will "integrate" in quite useful manners. > If CASE tools/environments would actually cooperate these folks would > probably be beating down CASE vendor doors to get them. You seem to assume that cooperating tools implies a useful system. As a potential customer, I don't care if "tools cooperate" or not, because to me, the partitioning and interfaces are arbitrary. Just show me what it does for me. Does it do something useful for me, better than what I do today? If not, I won't buy it. It seems from your message that you already feel that CASE tools can provide you with something useful, but don't see the need for cooperating "tools". A good reason comes from the UNIX market itself and "open systems". By having tools that can cooperate with other tools by providing a standard mechanism for other tools to use, then buyers of CASE tools are not locked into the single vendor, they can mix and match as they see fit. This will drive prices down due to competition, so the user wins. -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"