Community
Participate
Working Groups
A genmodel switch that resulted in EMF generating transaction support in the editors as described in http://help.eclipse.org/help33/index.jsp?topic=/org.eclipse.emf.workspace.doc/tutorials/workspaceTutorial.html would be great.
Would this more appropriately be listed on the Tools component (where codegen lives)? Or is it better to do some kind of genmodel extensibility thing in Transaction?
It's a bit tricky to provide an option that generates code that requires a runtime that might not be available. It's also asking quite a lot for the transaction component to have plugin purely for specialized templates. There are certainly awful lot of nice-to-haves that will be difficult to find resources to address... Just having a template that folks can use with dynamic templates to provide something like this would be pretty helpful in any case. Until some resource frees up to even start thinking about how best to address issues like this, it's probably best to leave things where they are.
Even if someone just wants to provide a modified project that I could compare to the original generated project to see what's all changed, I could easily turn that into a template. This is potentially a good bug for the bug days stuff since all I really need is a good example and I'd happily do the rest.
Hello Ed, I don't know if it helps, but the original library example (org.eclipse.emf.examples.library +edit/editor - actually named now extlibrary) has been converted by Christian W. Damus into a transactional one (org.eclipse.emf.workspace.examples.library.editor (in org.eclipse.emf.transaction.examples). Although it contains some extra features as well (like a custom CommandStackExceptionHandler, etc).
(In reply to comment #3) > turn that into a template. This is potentially a good bug for the bug days > stuff since all I really need is a good example and I'd happily do the rest. Good idea, Ed. I think you already know about the example that András referred to.
I thought that example had all kinds of "crap" added to it. :-P I'll have a close look to see if a delta between a raw generated version and what's there produces what I need...
(In reply to comment #6) > I thought that example had all kinds of "crap" added to it. :-P > > I'll have a close look to see if a delta between a raw generated version and > what's there produces what I need... Well, yeah, but Hans was specifically asking for that crap to be generated. :-D
Given the limited resources available to work on EMF Services, it is more realistic to admit that it will never get implemented. Feel free to reopen (with a patch and/or a proposal to fund the work needed) if you feel strongly about this.
