Geek Answers Handbook

Rational, EA or something else?

Does anyone have any thoughts on Rational Software Architect vs Sparx EA? Are there any other tools I should look at? In particular, I am interested in the following:

  • Compliance with any methodology (RUP, SOMF, etc.) - we are not settled on one now, but we need to choose the one that corresponds to the SoA architecture.
  • Multimodeling - I need to simulate all the way from hardware (ideally with cost / specification tracking by physical and cloud domains) to deployment, classes / services, etc.
  • Roundtrip - cancel our code / data and then generate stubs when we add new classes to the model.
  • NoSQL Support
  • Focus on code - we are less data oriented, we do not need to model tables and objects.

It seems that both rational and EA will do most of this, rational obviously leads with RUP. It does not seem to match the hardware / costing though sybase powerbuilder does - not sure if something is missing here?

Any tips on making the right assessment / selection? What else should I watch?

+7
source share
2 answers

It is difficult to do side by side only on the basis of these criteria, but here are some common differences.

RSA is based on the Eclipse Modeling Framework and at the UML2 level. This means that you are in the Eclipse ecosystem, you can run the tool on most platforms, and you can use any EMF and Eclipse plug-ins to enhance RSA. The downside of Eclipse is the graphical interface, which is based on SWT and feels awkward and slow.

EA is native to Windows and is supported on Linux through Wine / CrossOver. The plugin architecture is patented, so plugins are designed specifically for EA. The graphical interface is similar to any Windows program, fast and smooth.

EMF / UML2 provides a higher degree of UML compliance than a data model based on an EA database. RSA can feel bulky and obsessed with details, while EA can feel weak.

RSA does not support SysML. EA does.

EA supports SoaML. I don't think RSA does, but I'm not sure.

Converting forward / backward code: I'm not sure that RSA offers any such functionality on its own or simply uses suitable Eclipse plugins. EA supports forward and reverse engineering of dozens of odd source languages ​​and can reverse engineer Java and .NET binaries, as well as write execution paths from source binary files.

Both RSA and EA support model-to-model conversion. Most likely, the specific transformations that you will after this will not be supported, and you will have to build them yourself. Both tools can be extended into RSA through the plug-in architecture of Eclipse and Java; EA through a proprietary model-based engine ("MDG Technologies") and .NET.

In terms of methodology, I know that EA has support for SOMF (as well as TOGAF and UPDM), but this is not the same as enforcing. I do not know if RSA supports any framework or methodology.

Hardware is difficult to use in most modeling tools because it is not the core of UML. You can simulate nodes and devices, and that pretty much.

In general, I do not think that you will find any tool that will satisfy your specific needs out of the box. Instead, be prepared to make adaptations as well as make changes to your internal processes.

This suggests that for a clear simulation of power, functionality and ease of use, I would go with EA. If you want to achieve a higher degree of UML compliance and / or are already using Eclipse-based tools, take a look at RSA.

Credentials / Disclosure: I am an IBM RSA developer and probably Sweden’s leading EA expert. The company I work with sells an RSA-based product designed to improve the performance and quality of RSA modeling.

+9
source

Typically, you need a Meta Object Facility (MOF) tool because it allows tools to quickly implement new versions of the standard. IBM RSA is not a MOF-based tool and has several versions for what is current. I understand that it does not even support UML 2.0.

I would consider the following tools:

+2
source

More articles:


All Articles