BibSonomy publications for /user/phbaer/modelWed Jun 17 17:10:43 CEST 2009Los Alamitos, CA, USAInternational Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods3--12Modeling Heterogeneous Real-time Components in BIP02006bip components model phbaer-imoby real time Fri Jul 25 11:38:27 CEST 2008New York, NY, USAWWW '04: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web224--233{Enforcing Strict Model-View Separation in Template Engines}2004engine model separation stringtemplate template view Tue Jul 15 00:19:49 CEST 2008AprilVersion 1.0Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/TransformationSpecification2008facility model mof object query transformation view Tue Jul 15 00:15:26 CEST 2008JanuaryVersion 2.0Model Object Facility (MOF) Core specificationSpecification2006facilities model object uml Fri Jul 11 12:14:55 CEST 2008Modellgetriebene Softwareentwicklung: Techniken, Engineering, Management2007development driven model softwareentwicklung techniken Tue Jul 01 11:20:58 CEST 2008AmsterdamWorkshop on Model-Driven Software Evolution at CSMRMarchThe Drawbacks of Model-Driven Software Evolution2007drawback driven evolution harmfull model software This short paper is an essay on the drawbacks of model driven software evolution which apply equally well to model driven software development. The idea of automatically generating code changes from a UML type model is equally enticing as that of automatically generating whole components from such a model. The drawback is that there is then nothing to test against, since there is only one description of the system, the model. This violates the principles of software verification and validation, according to which correctness can only be demonstrated by comparing two independent descriptions of the same solution. For this reason, the author proposes another interpretation of model driven evolution, one in which the requirements model serves as a basis for propagating changes to both the code and the test, along two independent paths. The UML type system design could then be generated from the code and not [vice] versaThu Jun 26 11:26:30 CEST 2008Ontologiegestützte automatische Modell-Transformationen2008code generation generierung model modell ontologie Sun Jun 15 16:08:32 CEST 2008New York, NY, USAWWW '04: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web224--233Enforcing strict model-view separation in template engines2004engine model separation stringtemplate template view The mantra of every experienced web application developer is the same: thou shalt separate business logic from display. Ironically, almost all template engines allow violation of this separation principle, which is the very impetus for HTML template engine development. This situation is due mostly to a lack of formal definition of separation and fear that enforcing separation emasculates a template's power. I show that not only is strict separation a worthy design principle, but that we can enforce separation while providing a potent template engine. I demonstrate my StringTemplate engine, used to build jGuru.com and other commercial sites, at work solving some nontrivial generational tasks.My goal is to formalize the study of template engines, thus, providing a common nomenclature, a means of classifying template generational power, and a way to leverage interesting results from formal language theory. I classify three types of restricted templates analogous to Chomsky's type 1..3 grammar classes and formally define separation including the rules that embody separation.Because this paper provides a clear definition of model-view separation, template engine designers may no longer blindly claim enforcement of separation. Moreover, given theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, programmers no longer have an excuse to entangle model and view.