I have been trying to figure out whether the TextUML notation for action semantics can be dealt with properly by tools such as Xtext and EMFText (class models and state machines should be fine). For example, given this structural model fragment:

class Advertisement 
    attribute summary : String;
    attribute description : String; 
    attribute keywords : Keyword[*]; 
    attribute category : Category;  
    operation addKeyword(keywordName : String);
    static operation findByCategoryName(catName : String) : Advertisement[*];
end;

association AdvertisementKeyword
    role Advertisement.keywords;
    role advertisement : Advertisement;
end;

class Keyword specializes Object
    attribute name : String;
end;

class Category specializes Object
    attribute name : String;
    attribute description : String;
end;

association AdvertisementCategory
    role Advertisement.category;
    role ad : Advertisement[*];
end;

Notice the Advertisement class declares two operations. Their behaviour in TextUML could be written as:

    operation Advertisement.addKeyword;
    begin
        var newKeyword : Keyword; 
        newKeyword := new Keyword;
        newKeyword.name := keywordName;
        link AdvertisementKeyword(keywords := newKeyword, advertisement := self);
    end;

    operation Advertisement.findByCategoryName;
    begin  
        return Advertisement extent.select(
            (a : Advertisement) : Boolean {
                return a->AdvertisementCategory->category.name = catName; 
            }
        );
    end;

Note that TextUML allows the behavior to be specified inline when declaring an operation in a class, or in separate, as above (that explains the lack of parameters, modifiers etc).

In the resulting UML model, the behaviour of Advertisement.addKeyword would roughly map to this (using a textual pseudo-notation for UML activities that is hopefully more readable than raw XMI):

activity(name: "addKeyword") {
    structuredActivityNode {
        variable(name: "newKeyword", type: #String)
        writeVariable(variable: #newKeyword, value: createObject(class: #Keyword))
        writeAttribute(
            attribute: #Keyword.name, 
            target: readVariable(variable: #newKeyword), 
            value: readVariable(variable: #keywordName)
        )
        createLink(
            association: #AdvertisementKeyword, 
            end1: #AdvertisementKeyword.keyword, 
            end1Value: readVariable(variable: #newKeyword), 
            end2: #AdvertisementKeyword.advertisement, 
            end2Value: readSelf()
        )
    }
}

and the behaviour Advertisement.findByCategoryName would map to this:

activity(name: "findByCategoryName") {
    structuredActivityNode {
        // implicit variable for return value
        variable(name: "@result", type: #Advertisement, upperBound: *)
        // implicit variable for parameter value
        variable(name: "catName", type: #String)
        writeVariable(
            variable: #@result, 
            value: callOperation(
                operation: #Advertisement.select, 
                target: readExtent(class: #Advertisement),
                filter: metaValue(#@findByCategoryName_closure1)
            )
        )
    }
}

// a closure is an activity that has a reference to a context activity
closure(name: "@findByCategoryName_closure1") {
        // implicit variable for return value
        variable(name: "@result", type: #Boolean)
        // implicit variable for parameter value
        variable(name: "a", type: #Advertisement)
        writeVariable(
            variable: #@result, 
            value: callOperation(
                operation: #Object.equals,
                // variables from the context activity are available here
                target: readVariable(variable: #catName)
                args: readAttribute(attribute: #Category.name, target: readLink(
                    association: #AdvertisementCategory,
                    fedEnd: #Advertisement.ad,
                    fedEndValue: readVariable(variable: #a),
                    readEnd: #Advertisement.category
                ))
            )          
        )
}

Note that UML does not have closures, this is an extension to the UML metamodel which I wrote about here before.

Some background on the metaclasses involved: ReadVariableAction, CreateObjectAction, CreateLinkAction, ReadExtentAction etc are all action metaclasses. Actions are the building blocks for modeling activity behaviour in UML.

The million dollar question is: can Xtext and EMFText handle more complex textual notations like this? Is this out of the happy path? Has anyone done something similar? I am under the impression I could use Xtext or EMFText better if I used them based on a intermediate metamodel for behavior that would be closer to the concrete syntax (to get all the IDE bells and whistles for free) and then transformed that to UML in a separate step.

If you have the answers for any of these questions (or even if you have comments and questions of your own), please chime in.

I strongly believe queries are an essential part of a domain model. As such, in our quest to have (UML) models that can fully (yet abstractly) describe object models for the common enterprise applications, we cannot leave out first class support for queries.

But how do you do queries in UML? The obvious answer seems to be OCL, but that is not the approach I am taking as OCL and UML have serious interoperability/duplication issues. Instead, I took the  middleweight extension approach.

First, we model a protocol for manipulating collections of objects (showing only a subset here):

class Collection specializes Basic
  operation includes(object : T) : Boolean;
  operation isEmpty() : Boolean;
  operation size() : Integer;
  operation exists(predicate : {(:T) : Boolean}) : Boolean;
  operation any(predicate : {(:T) : Boolean}) : T;
  operation select(filter : {(:T) : Boolean}) : T[*];
  operation collect(mapping : {(:T) : any}) : any[*];
  operation forEach(predicate : {(:T)});
  operation union(another : T[*]) : T[*];
  (...)
end;

That protocol is available against any collection of objects, which in UML can be obtained by navigating an association, reading an attribute, invoking an operation, obtaining the extent of a class (remember Smalltalk’s allInstances), anything where the resulting value has multiplicity greater than one.

Note most of the operations in the Collection protocol take blocks/closures as arguments. Closures are used in this context to define the filtering criterion for a select, or the mapping function for a collect.

For instance, for obtaining all accounts that currently do not have sufficient funds, this method would do it:

static operation findNSFAccounts() : Account[*];
begin
    return Account extent.select(
        (a : Account) : Boolean {return a.balance < 0}
    );
end;

Note the starting collection is the extent of the Account class. That is very similar to what is done in the context of query languages for object-oriented databases, such as OQL or JDOQL. We then filter the class extent by selecting only those accounts that have a negative balance, by passing a block to the select operation.

When mapping that behavior to SQL, we could end up with a query like this:

select _account_.* from Account _account_ where _account_.balance < 0

Another example: we want to obtain all customers with a balance above a given amount, let’s say, to send them a letter to thank them for their business. The following method specifies that logic:

static operation findBestCustomers(minBalance : Real) : Customer[*];
begin
    return (Account extent.select(
          (a : Account) : Boolean { return a.balance >= minBalance }
    ).collect(
          (a : Account) : Customer { return a->AccountOwner->owner }
    ) as Customer);
end;

Note that we start off with the extent of Account class, filter it down to the accounts with good balance using select, and then map from that collection to a collection with the respective account owners by traversing an association using collect.

If that was going to be mapped to SQL, one possible mapping would be:

select _customer_.* from Account _account_
    inner join Customer _customer_
        on  _account_._accountID_ = _customer_._customerID_
    where _account_.balance >= ?

Much of this can be already modeled if you try it out with the TextUML Toolkit 1.2. But, you might ask, once you model that, what can you do with UML models containing queries like the ones shown here?

Since the models are complete (include structure and behavior), you can:

1. Execute them. Imagine writing automated tests against your models, or letting your customer play with them before you actually start working on the implementation.
2. Generate complete code. The generated code will include even your custom queries, not only those basic ones (findAll, findByPK) code generators can usually produce for you.

If you would like to see tools that support that vision, keep watching this blog.

So, what is your opinion?
Do you see value in being able to specify queries in your models? Is this the right direction? What would you do differently?