Rational，EA还是其他？ [英] Rational, EA, or something else?
问题描述
有人对Rational Software Architect和Sparx EA有什么想法吗？我还应该考虑其他工具吗？具体来说，我对以下内容感兴趣；
Does anyone have any thoughts on Rational Software Architect vs Sparx EA? Are there other tools I should be looking at? Specifically, I'm interested in the following;
- 遵守某些方法（RUP，SOMF等）-我们不是
现在就定下来了，但是需要选择一个适合SoA架构的东西。 - 多模型化-我需要从硬件开始进行建模（最好是
具有跨物理和云的成本/规格跟踪）到部署，
类/服务等。 - 往返-反转我们的代码/数据，然后在我们添加时生成存根模型的新类。
- NoSQL支持
- 关注代码-我们以数据为中心，我们不需要为
表建模，并且
- Adherance to some methodology (RUP, SOMF, etc.) -- we're not settled on one now, but need to pick one that suits a SoA architecture.
- Multi-modeling -- I need to model all the way from hardware (ideally with cost/spec tracking across physical and cloud) to deployment, classes/services, etc.
- Roundtrip -- reverse our code/data and then generate stubs as we add new classes to the model.
- NoSQL support
- Focus on code -- we're less data-centric, we don't need to model tables and entities that much.
看来，理性和EA都将完成大部分工作，理性显然会带动RUP。虽然sybase powerbuilder确实没有做任何硬件映射/成本核算，但是不确定我是否在这里遗漏了什么？
It seems both rational and EA will do most of this, rational obviously leads with RUP. Neither seems to do the hardware mapping/costing, though sybase powerbuilder does -- not sure if im missing something here?
关于如何正确评估/选择任何建议的任何建议？我还有什么需要看的？
Any advice on how to properly evaluate/choose one? Anything else I should look at?
推荐答案
仅凭这些标准很难并排，但是这里有一些一般差异。
It's hard to do a side-by-side based on these criteria alone, but here are some general differences.
RSA基于Eclipse Modeling Framework和UML2层。这意味着您处于Eclipse生态系统中，可以在大多数平台上运行该工具，并且可以使用任何EMF和Eclipse插件来增强RSA。 Eclipse的缺点是GUI，它基于SWT，感觉笨拙且缓慢。
RSA is based on the Eclipse Modeling Framework and the UML2 layer. This means you're in the Eclipse ecosystem, can run the tool on most platforms and can use any EMF and Eclipse plug-ins to enhance RSA. Downside with Eclipse is the GUI, which is based on SWT and feels clunky and slow.
EA是Windows原生的，并通过Wine / CrossOver在Linux上受支持。插件体系结构是专有的，因此插件是专门为EA开发的。 GUI就像任何Windows程序一样，快速，流畅。
EA is Windows-native and supported on Linux via Wine / CrossOver. The plug-in architecture is proprietary, so plug-ins are developed specifically for EA. The GUI feels like any Windows program, quick and smooth.
与EA基于数据库的数据模型相比，EMF / UML2提供了更高的UML一致性。 RSA可能会让您感到麻烦和痴迷，而EA可能会感到松懈。
EMF / UML2 provides a higher degree of UML conformance than EA's database-based data model. RSA can feel cumbersome and obsessed with details, while EA can feel lax.
RSA不支持SysML。
RSA does not support SysML. EA does.
EA支持SoaML。我不认为RSA可以，但是我不确定。
EA supports SoaML. I don't think RSA does, but I'm not certain.
代码正向/反向工程：我不确定RSA是否本身提供了任何此类功能，或者如果仅仅是使用适当的Eclipse插件的问题。
EA支持十多种源语言的正向和反向工程，并且可以对Java和.NET二进制文件进行反向工程，并记录本机二进制文件的执行路径。
Code forward / reverse engineering: I'm not sure whether RSA offers any such functionality itself, or if it's simply a matter of using the appropriate Eclipse plug-ins. EA supports forward and reverse engineering of a dozen-odd source languages, and can reverse-engineer Java and .NET binaries, as well as record execution paths from native binaries.
RSA和EA均支持模型到模型的转换。很可能将不支持您要进行的特定转换，而您必须自己构建它们。
可以通过Eclipse插件体系结构和Java在RSA中扩展这两种工具。通过专有的基于模型的机制（ MDG技术）和.NET在EA中使用。
Both RSA and EA support model-to-model transformations. Most likely the specific transformations you're after won't be supported and you'll have to construct them yourselves. Both tools can be extended, in RSA through the Eclipse plug-in architecture and Java; in EA through a proprietary model-based mechanism ("MDG Technologies") and .NET.
就方法论而言，我知道EA支持SOMF（以及TOGAF和UPDM），但与执行不同。
我不知道RSA是否支持任何框架或方法。
In terms of methodology, I know EA has support for SOMF (as well as TOGAF and UPDM), but that's not the same as enforcement. I don't know whether RSA supports any frameworks or methodologies.
在大多数建模工具中，硬件都不是UML的核心，因此它很棘手。您可以对节点和设备进行建模，仅此而已。
Hardware is tricky in most modelling tools since it's not core to UML. You can model nodes and devices, and that's pretty much it.
总的来说，我认为您找不到开箱即用的工具来满足您的特定需求。取而代之的是，要做好适应性的调整，也要对您的内部流程进行更改。
On balance, I don't think you will find any tool that suits your specific needs out of the box. Instead, be prepared to make adaptations and also to make changes to your internal processes.
也就是说，出于纯粹的建模功能，功能和易用性，我会选择EA 。如果要确保更高程度的UML一致性和/或已经在使用基于Eclipse的工具，请查看RSA。
That said, for sheer modelling power, functionality and ease of use I would go with EA. If you want to ensure a higher degree of UML conformance and/or you are already using Eclipse-based tools, look at RSA.
证书/披露：我是IBM认证的RSA解决方案设计师，并且可能是瑞典的EA领先专家。
我工作的公司出售一种基于RSA的产品，旨在提高RSA建模的生产率和质量。
Credentials / disclosure: I'm an IBM certified solutions designer for RSA, and probably Sweden's leading expert on EA. The company I work for sells an RSA-based product intended to increase RSA modelling productivity and quality.
这篇关于Rational，EA还是其他？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
