CAST Vs SONAR                  www.scmGalaxy.comsG       Published by: Rajesh Kumar       rajesh@scmGalaxy.com            ...
Agenda   Functional comparison CAST and SONAR (10’)
Functionality coverage - summary   Regarding SEP mandatory features     CAST covers 75% of SEP mandatory features     S...
CAST vs SONAR: Technologies covered                             Technology   CAST   SONAR 1.11   Strong point    for CAST...
Common CAST and SONAR functionalities                    Common Functionality        Weight   CAST    SONAR               ...
Extra CAST Functionalities                  Common Functionality          Weight   CAST    SONAR 1.11 Action plans    Gen...
Extra SONAR Functionalities CAST has no                             Common                Weight      CAST        SONAR 1...
Pros                             CAST                                SONAR                     Professional solution      ...
Cons              CAST                               SonarPrice of licenses: 2 K€ à 4 K€        Lack of documentation for ...
www.scmGalaxy.comsG   Published by: Rajesh Kumar     rajesh@scmGalaxy.com
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Cast vs sonar

2,775

Published on

The Attached PDF contains Functional comparison CAST and SONAR.

File Can be downloaded from:
http://community.scmgalaxy.com/

Published in: Technology
1 Comment
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,775
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Cast vs sonar"

  1. 1. CAST Vs SONAR www.scmGalaxy.comsG Published by: Rajesh Kumar rajesh@scmGalaxy.com scmGalaxy
  2. 2. Agenda Functional comparison CAST and SONAR (10’)
  3. 3. Functionality coverage - summary  Regarding SEP mandatory features  CAST covers 75% of SEP mandatory features  Sonar covers 65% of SEP mandatory features  From the overall functionality  CAST covers 80% of all functionality  Sonar covers 60% of all functionality  Between the tools themselves  CAST covers 65% of Sonar functionality  Sonar covers 50% of CAST functionality
  4. 4. CAST vs SONAR: Technologies covered Technology CAST SONAR 1.11  Strong point for CAST Java Y Y C++ Y Y  SONAR covers C Y Plug-in in dev the 2 main JSP Y N (tbc) techno’s in Amadeus: SQL Server Y N Java and C++ .NET, VB Y N and soon C PL/SQL Y Plug-in 2000 € PHP Y Plug-in in dev  This difference in ASP Y N technologies Oracle Y N covered BO Y N applies also to EAI, ETL Y N other commercial Main Frame Y N tools SAP, SIEBEL Y N
  5. 5. Common CAST and SONAR functionalities Common Functionality Weight CAST SONAR 1.11  Most of the Scanning of quality rules 3 Y Y major functionaliti Provide global scores 3 Y Y es are grouped in health factors (ISO 9126) covered by Historical data/results, 3 Y Y CAST and versioning SONAR Access to results via 3 Y Y dashboard Drill down of violations 3 Y Y Cartography of the 2 Y Available application via Maven Security 2 Y Y
  6. 6. Extra CAST Functionalities Common Functionality Weight CAST SONAR 1.11 Action plans Generation of action plans 3 Y N not covered by SONAR Access via Eclipse plug-in 3 Y N for the developer Violation diff. mechanism 3 Y N No access via Eclipse plug- Function points/Effort 3 Y N ins for the estimation developer in Risk Propagation Index 2 Y N SONAR Impact analysis intra 2 Y To be checked technology with Maven Internal Quality architecture intra 1 Y SonarJ plug-in Amadeus J2EE (not free) discussions Quality architecture inter 1 Y N regarding technologies function points and Benchmarking with other 1 Y N effort companies estimation Impact analysis 1 Y N Inter-layers & technologies
  7. 7. Extra SONAR Functionalities CAST has no Common Weight CAST SONAR 1.11 plans to enter in Functionality the Unit Test domain (out of Unit Tests execution 3 N Y the scope of the product) Analysis of the code 3 N Y coverage Integration with Integration with SEP QA 3 N Y* SEP QA intranet intranet for CRs and to have CR’s and PTRs info PTR’s info Estimation of the 2 N Y technical debt of the correction, per Technical debt is component/class interesting to estimate the effort of Y*: This functionality has been developed internally correction
  8. 8. Pros CAST SONAR Professional solution Easy to extend functionalities via plug-ins Sophisticated dashboard Flexibility to analyse several indicators together and see the evolution over a given period of time  The Databases of Generation of action plans and Execution of Unit Tests (and capture assignement to the development the failed percentage) SONAR and team CAST look easy to Access via Eclipse plug-in Unit Test code coverage interrogate Technologies coverage Several ways to see the results (clouds, treemap, hotspots, historical ...).  This may Benchmarking / Effort Open source: many plug-ins, allow the reactivity integration of It can be used as ‘douane Database is easy to access and data applicative’ for outsourcing (via allows integration with other SLAs) dahsboards. extracted by SONAR and Documentation of the product CAST in other and rules dashboards Database is easy to access via views and allows integration with other dahsboards.
  9. 9. Cons CAST SonarPrice of licenses: 2 K€ à 4 K€ Lack of documentation for the(depending on the number): developer- 2800 € for a limited scope of 100licenses- 2200 € for all SEP sites Open source: Duration of the product depends on the community
  10. 10. www.scmGalaxy.comsG Published by: Rajesh Kumar rajesh@scmGalaxy.com

×