RE: [aus-dotnet] UML 2 and Microsoft

[Steve Rose]

AFAIK, its not that microsoft is "against" UML. Its that they are primariliy interested in solving a particular kind of business problem (with DSLs) and the exisisting UML etc specs don't give them what they need. Given the lead times they need to get something GOOD into Team System, my understanding is they have de-emphasised the standard and moved instead to something that does what they need. They may re-converge later - who knows.  In the meantime, people who do need UML with Team System will be able to get it from Borland.   "Software Factories offer a more specific and simplified approach to software development than UML and other modeling languages can provide today", said Rick LaPlante, General Manager for the Visual Studio 2005 Team System at Microsoft. "However there may be customers who want a more rigorous approach to visual design such as UML. For those customers, Borland will be able to provide a modeling solution that can leverage the best of both worlds"  - Joint press release about Nov 14, 2004   Although I do wonder why Rick choose the word "rigorous" - makes we worry a bit about whitehorse ;)   Steve Rose Federal Region Manager Borland  

---

From: dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ILT
Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2004 10:00 PM
To: dotnet@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [aus-dotnet] UML 2 and Microsoft

As a supplement to my previous post on this, I was aware of what’s in the following news article (found a suitable summary that is about the limit of my knowledge on the to-ing and fro-ing, actually) –

 

http://www.cbronline.co.uk/article_news.asp?guid=CAB30E09-41A7-4A47-9811-8D18FAD19403

Microsoft bringing partners into ALM platform

Microsoft will next month come a step closer to realizing its emerging Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) vision, by releasing a series of XML schemas underpinning its recently announced Visual Studio 2005 Team System.

 

IL Thomas

GeoSciSoft - Perth, Australia

 

-----Original Message-----
From: dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ILT
Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2004 6:54 PM
To: dotnet@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aus-dotnet] UML 2 and Microsoft

 

Perhaps also a little bit off-topic, but I haven’t been across any argy-bargy about why (if it’s true at all) Microsoft is “against” UML and in particular UML 2.0  - this ComputerWorld / InfoWorld interview points the finger (at least, the IBM guy does) –

 

InfoWorld Editor at Large Paul Krill talked about the subject with Brian Selic, IBM Distinguished Engineer and co-chairman of the OMG task force on UML 2.0.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=550886093&eid=-301

 

Can anyone educate me on this?

 

IL Thomas

GeoSciSoft - Perth, Australia

 

-----Original Message-----
From: dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Parsons
Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2004 6:39 PM
To: dotnet@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [aus-dotnet] OT - IE pagesave failures

 

I was able to save the page to disk fine, but if you're having problems with that particular page, click on the Printer Friendly button on the left and save that version - less than half the size (and most of that would be unneeded _javascript_).

 

---

From: dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ILT
Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2004 4:24 PM
To: dotnet@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aus-dotnet] OT - IE pagesave failures

Curiosity about 1752 and the change to the Gregorian calendar led me to link to the page

http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=3358

and I decided to save it to disk – but IE6 won’t play

 

I’ve asked this on MS newsgroups (I hope not here; if so, sorry folks) and don’t get a wholly convincing answer. The work-around I use when I really want” a page is to print as a PDF file. But that’s not always great, because some webpages are made for screens at 1400px width and can’t print to paper (hence, a PDF default A4 pagesize slices off the right margin).

 

Any thoughts?

 

Ian Thomas

GeoSciSoft - Perth, Australia

-----Original Message-----
From: dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hungerford, Martin (Contractor)
Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2004 10:13 AM
To: 'dotnet@xxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [aus-dotnet] #12:00:00 AM# ..is date

 

Tim

   Your info is correct for England.  In Russia, IIRC, the days were removed in 1917.

 

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tim Wilson
Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2004 1:15 PM
To: 'dotnet@xxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [aus-dotnet] #12:00:00 AM# ..is date

By the way, do people know why SQL Server uses 1753?

 

About 8 years ago I was doing some SCO System admin, when I stumbled across some interesting information reading through the "MAN" command (online manual) pages, looking for information about date-related commands. It's interesting to note that in September 1752, 11 days were subtracted from that month in Gregorian calendar (the one used by western society today). Interestingly SCO Unix displayed a calendar for that month - with exactly 11 days missing.

 

Curious about the details of the calendar change, do a search for words "gregorian","1752" and "semptember". eg...

http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=3358

 

.Net uses the same method as SQL for controls DateTimePicker and MonthCalendar - you cant display it because of a curious mindate. Not much of a problem for most applications.

 

Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: anthony [mailto:list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 18 November 2004 10:57 PM
To: dotnet@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [aus-dotnet] #12:00:00 AM# ..is date

thanks

 

---

From: dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew de la Harpe
Sent: Thursday, 18 November 2004 10:02 PM
To: dotnet@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [aus-dotnet] #12:00:00 AM# ..is date

A date always has a value.

Date dt = new Date() = 00:00:00.0000000, January 1, 0001

Your problem is that this is probably less than the allowed value for your datatype.

eg SQL Server datetime type has a min value of  January 1, 1753 .

 

Usually it's best to insert a null for unassigned dates.

ie. if ( dt > DateTime.MinValue)

        set param here...

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dotnet-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of anthony
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 9:55 PM
To: dotnet@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aus-dotnet] #12:00:00 AM# ..is date

I have property defined as datetime...when i read the property wihout any assignment the value is #12:00:00 AM#

 

if i use isdate..it returns TRUE but this will not submit to SQL...How do i detect a valid datetime for SQL?

 

 

Anthony