Bug 78076

Summary:	[Plan Item] JMerger: Decouple the JMerger implementation from JDOM
Product:	[Modeling] EMF	Reporter:	Marcelo Paternostro <marcelop>
Component:	Tools	Assignee:	Marcelo Paternostro <marcelop>
Status:	VERIFIED FIXED	QA Contact:
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	P1	CC:	caniszczyk, dsciamma, jeichar, jfrantzius
Version:	2.1
Target Milestone:	Past
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows XP
Whiteboard:
Bug Depends on:
Bug Blocks:	124372

Description Marcelo Paternostro

2004-11-08 10:45:46 EST

The JMerger tool is using the deprecated JDOM because it was not possible to
move to AST by the end of the 2.0 cycle.

Comment 1 Ed Merks

2005-02-18 07:36:39 EST

[plan pri=1 est=4w/]

Comment 2 Ed Merks

2005-07-19 12:42:06 EDT

*** Bug 104303 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Ed Merks

2005-11-15 13:21:32 EST

*** Bug 116463 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 Marcelo Paternostro

2006-01-18 15:12:14 EST

As we were porting JMerger to AST, we realized that one of the big issues of this task was to ensure that all the existing merge rules (hence "current behavior of JMerge") work.  The constructs available in the merge rules (the Member/getContent in a pull rule for example) were designed having JDOM in mind.

So I am renaming this bug to state this issue.  We choose to decouple the JMerge from JDOM by using a facade approach.  We will define a set of interfaces that should be used to represent the Java code being merged, and, initially, provide a JDOM implementation for these interfaces.  

The next step is to provide a different implementation, using a non-deprecated API that must also support the new constructs available in Java5.  AST is the main candidate.

This architectural change allows anyone to hook her own facade implemention, which can be, for example, Eclipse independent - which would allow JMerger to be used anywhere.

Comment 5 Marcelo Paternostro

2006-01-18 15:49:54 EST

The changes are committed to CVS.

Comment 6 Nick Boldt

2006-01-19 12:44:57 EST

Fixed in 2.2.0.I200501190000

Comment 7 Nick Boldt

2008-01-28 16:48:12 EST

Move to verified as per bug 206558.