DSL evaluation for eip-designer - please take a look

[dzw1999]

Hello, greetings from the software engineering group from Beihang University, China. We have been working on the evaluation of Domain Specific Modeling Languages (DSMLs ), the main purpose is to find out the flaws of the design of the DSML. To test our evaluation framework, we evaluated your software design, mainly based on your ecore and odesign files, and found out that even though the overall quality of your software design is very good, there still exists some minor problems. The details are as follows:

rule-based evaluation

Firstly, we did some rule-based evaluation, mainly focusing on the graphic part.

Evaluation of Semiotic Clarity

We've checked your odesign file according to Goodman's theory of symbols[Goodman N. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols[M]. Hackett publishing, Indianapolis, 1976.], and there are some minor problems that can decrease the semiotic clarity of your design as follows:

1. Deficit Elements

   There are some elements in your design that are not represented by any graphic symbols.

   Certainly, we know that some elements do not need to be assigned symbols to, but we believe it is best to check whether these elements really do not need symbols or they were just overlooked.

   • Adapter
   • Router
   • Filter
   • Transformer
   • Gateway
   • Splitter
   • Aggregator
   • ServiceActivator
   • Enricher
   • MessagePart
   • RoutingType
   • RecipientListRouter
   • InvocableEndpoint
   • ContentFilter
   • Resequencer
   • ExchangeType
   • Metadata
   • Metadatable

LLMS-based evaluation

Secondly, we did some LLMS-based evaluation, mainly focusing on the model part. Generally speaking, we try to make LLM act as a domain expert to provide multidimensional evaluations of your language design.

Model Completeness

We give your ecore design to LLM and ask the LLM to guess which domain your language is designed for. And then we ask LLM to add possible missing elements to your language (perhaps not taken into account in the first version of the design, but can be considered for inclusion in future versions). The results are as follows:

This set of meta models belongs to the field of Enterprise Integration Patterns (EIP), which mainly focuses on various components in message and event driven architectures and their interactions. This field is dedicated to solving the integration problem between applications and services, with a focus on asynchronous messaging systems.

Additional meta models and relationships can be supplemented as follows:

Element:

Queue: name; Dual;
Exchange: name; Type;
Binding: key;
Message: content; Headers;
Event: type; Payload;
Workflow: name; Steps;
ProcessManager: state;
CorrelationID: id;

Relationship:

Channel (1)<- boundTo ->Exchange (n)
Exchange (1)<- owns ->Binding (n)
Binding (1)<- toQueue ->Queue (1)
Message (1)<- publishedTo ->Channel (1)
Message (1)<- deliveredVia ->Queue (1)
Endpoint (1)<- listensOn ->Queue (1)
Event (1)<- triggeredOn ->Channel (1)
Workflow (1)<- triggers ->Event (n)
Workflow (1)<- execute ->ProcessManager (1)
ProcessManager (1)<- managers ->Workflow (n)
ProcessManager (1)<- uses ->CorrelationID (1)
Message (1)<- arrays ->CorrelationID (1)

These supplementary elements and relationships further enrich the meta model of enterprise integration patterns, adding descriptions of key concepts such as queues, switches, bindings, messages, events, workflows, and process managers, as well as the ways they interact with each other. These are factors that often need to be considered when implementing enterprise level integration.

We are not sure if these issues actually constitute a problem, the decision to fix them or not is still up to your team, looing forward to your respond, thanks!