Hi Ricardo,
Would we need sub-packages for each
discipline or modeling view? For instance, would someone want UC modeling but
not other UML modeling information?
- Jim
____________________
Jim Ruehlin, IBM
Rational
RUP Content
Developer
Eclipse Process
Framework (EPF) Committer
email:
jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx
phone:
760.505.3232
fax:
949.369.0720
From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 10:51
AM
To: epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] Refactoring of
Visual Modeling packages
Hi all,
As
part of implementing bug "Refactor Use-Case Model into separate package
(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=147349), I though of creating a
package called visual_modeling (under Requirements package), following the same
convention used in Architecture and Development packages.
Another
level of refactoring I though could be useful - that I would like to ask your
opinion about - is: should we put all these vm packages together in only one
package called visual_modeling? This package would be outside of Architecture,
Development and RM, but would contribute stuff to each of them. This would
offer an all-or-nothing approach, where visual modeling is fully included in a
given configuration or not.
Please,
let me know what you think. If there aren't strong contrary opinions, I'll
proceed with the refactoring.
Thanks,
Ricardo Balduino
Senior Software Engineer
IBM | RUP Team | EPF Committer
Phone: 1 (408) 863-5019 (TL: 560-5019)
www.ibm.com
www.eclipse.org/epf
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
