the tool is not provided with a high-level model representing all the system directly in terms of classes and relations to be compared with the corresponding information in source code, rather, more high-level models or partial models, which represent pieces of a system are provided to check compliance with specific parts of an implementation. Moreover, Pattern-Lint does not handle approximate matches like our system does using edit distance and REs. Design documents are often inconsistent with source code implementation for several reasons, e.g., because maintaining consistency is a costly and tedious activity and reducing time to market is often vital to face competition. However, being able to trace design into code is fundamental in both development and maintenance phases of the software life cycle. Automatic tools to support design-code compliance check, showing potential discrepancies and lack of trace-ability between the two artifacts are thus useful both in development and maintenance. Reports about design-code compliance, and especially graphical layouts such as the pair-difference diagrams are very useful, both for code and design inspections and for assessing the truthfulness of a design document before using it for maintenance tasks. The lesson learned by experimenting a design-code compliance check approach on a real industrial case study is that tools cannot rely on a perfect adherence of design and implementation: our first experiment based on class exact matching gave rather poor results of design-code traceabil-ity, reporting a high number of deleted and added classes. Furthermore, industrial software, and especially that developed with OO technology, often is built using a component-based strategy or based on COTS and libraries. Hence, a design-code compliance check tool must take into account the " physiological " inconsistencies between design and code represented by reuse and COTS, signal-ing them to the user with different priorities. To properly handle such cases we introduced the concept of similarity between entities in design and in code, relaxing the exact name matching and introducing edit distance and REs to account for deleted or added classes. The reviewed design-code compliance check approach has been applied again to the same industrial system and it has allowed to improve the figures of traceability, above all for the added classes, which decreased from 142% of the total design classes to 54%. Deleted classes have slightly decreased while common classes have remained invaried. Future work will be devoted to further experimenting the proposed approach to a wider set of …

article Free Access Share on Metamodeling in OO: OOPSLA'95 workshop summary Authors: Hafedh Mili University of Québec at Montréal, Canada University of Québec at Montréal, CanadaView Profile , Francois Pachet University of Paris VI, France University of Paris VI, FranceView Profile , Ilham Benyahia Institut de recherche d'hydro-québec, Canada Institut de recherche d'hydro-québec, CanadaView Profile , Fred Eddy OMT Consulting Inc. OMT Consulting Inc.View Profile Authors Info & Claims ACM SIGPLAN OOPS MessengerVolume 6Issue 4Oct 1, 1995 pp 105–110https://doi.org/10.1145/260111.260257Online:01 October 1995Publication History 2citation303DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations2Total Downloads303Last 12 Months3Last 6 weeks1 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF

1. Introduction. I. MODELING CONCEPTS. 2. Modeling as a Design Technique. 3. Object Modeling. 4. Advanced Object Modeling. 5. Dynamic Modeling. 6. Functional Modeling. II. DESIGN METHODOLOGY. 7. Methodology Preview. 8. Analysis. 9. System Design. 10. Object Design. 11. Methodology Summary. 12. Comparison of Methodologies. III. IMPLEMENTATION. 13. From Design to Implementation. 14. Programming Style. 15. Object-Oriented Languages. 16. Non-Object-Oriented Languages. 17. Databases. 18. Object Diagram Compiler. 19. Computer Animation. 20. Electrical Distribution Design System. 21. Future of Object-Oriented Technology. Appendix A: OMT Graphical Notation. Appendix B: Glossary. Index.