Re: Closing on NIM requirements

[Jon Saperia <saperia@mediaone.net>]

on 04/16/2000 4:58 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand at Harald@Alvestrand.no
wrote:

> UML, from my brief acquaintance, has about half a dozen different modelling
> methods, all better at showing some properties of the system than others.
> One OO credo (or at least part of one) is that data and operations need to
> be closely bound together, because neither is understandable without the
> other; I subscribe to that.

I have a stated a preference for UML in the past. The interesting question
that this discussion begs is: if people believe LDAP and SNMP (and others)
are not able to effectively represent what is in the 'higher-level' models,
what should be done? I have mentioned a number of times that the technology
specific details, whether they be LDAP, SNMP, or anything else will always
tend to impinge on the higher layer modeling. Even in what are generally
considered to be OO languages, there are important differences. For example,
how do I do multiple inheritance in Java?  The point is not to pick on Java
or any other technology. My point is that either the modeling language be
reduced to the least common denominator - which probably nobody wants, or a
plan be put in place to bring up the infrastructure elements to the point
where they have what people feel is needed. In that case a fairly protracted
but appropriate discussion of tradeoffs would probably have to take place.

/jon