Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Page 1 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana2.3.2005 Short Comparison of Agent IDEs Lars Braubach.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Page 1 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana2.3.2005 Short Comparison of Agent IDEs Lars Braubach."— Presentation transcript:

1 Page 1 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana Short Comparison of Agent IDEs Lars Braubach

2 Page 2 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana CASE Tool - IDE - Runtime Env. CASE Tool IDE Runtime Environment Analysis/Design Implementation/ Testing/Debugging Modelling Language Programming Language Source Code Gen. Mapping based on Operation Executable Language Compilation / Interpretation Mapping (e.g. Rational Rose) (e.g. Eclipse) (e.g. J2SE) (e.g. UML)(e.g. Java)(e.g. Bytecode) based on

3 Page 3 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana CASE Tool - IDE - Runtime Env. CASE Tool IDE Runtime Environment Analysis/Design Implementation/ Testing/Debugging Modelling Language Programming Language Source Code Gen. Mapping based on Operation Executable Language Compilation / Interpretation Mapping (e.g. Prometheus Design Tool) (e.g. JACK IDE) (e.g. JACK platform) (e.g. Prometheus language) (e.g. JAL)(e.g. Bytecode) based on

4 Page 4 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana Lessons learned from OO-IDEs Objectives of OO-IDEs:  Address mainstream OO programming languages  Want to support mainstream application developers  Cover mainly the implementation phase  Support development at the programming language level (mostly concentrate on one language)  Make development more effective by automating tasks

5 Page 5 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana Functionality of OO-IDEs Target mainly inplementation phase (so they are not meant to support a specific methodology)  Project management (project structure, versioning, team management, file management, …)  Creating/editing (struture views, error detection, auto-completion, code generation, …)  Refactoring (renaming, changing signatures, moving elements, …)  Build/Run(Debug) Process (automatic compiling, direct invocation of methods, …)  Testing (unit testing, code coverage, …) Sometimes also address design (UML-plugins etc.) and deployment

6 Page 6 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana Agent IDEs (Overview) As no generally accepted agent programming language exists, agent frameworks have to support proprietary IDEs From ~50 agent platforms only ~7 offer IDE support

7 Page 7 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana Example Agent IDEs

8 Page 8 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana Agent IDEs - State-of-the-Art Some MAS Frameworks with IDE support: Most agent IDEs: support one platform specific agent language offer basic support for project management, editing and build/run actions do not support refactoring and testing

9 Page 9 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana Some Observations for AO IDEs try to abstract away from the language and offer graphical means for programming (dialogs, wizards, etc.)  why? are agent languages are not adequate for direct programming? try to reinvent the wheel as (mostly) they are not based on existing OO IDEs  what is the reason for this? are generally not connected to agent analysis/design tools. A few IDEs (PDT, Living Systems Suite) want to support the whole development process  is this desirable as no consensus exists concerning methodologies? are mostly commercial  are these tools a selling argument or a real help?

10 Page 10 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana Summary An IDE supports a developer in the implementation phase at the code level Few agent IDEs are available to date. They provide only (basic) support for project management, creating/editing and building/running activities Do not cover refactoring, testing at all Are (mostly) implemented from scratch as commercial solutions


Download ppt "Page 1 PROMAS TFG Ljubljana2.3.2005 Short Comparison of Agent IDEs Lars Braubach."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google