Re: [epf-dev] EPF Manual

[Ricardo Balduino <balduino@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Bjorn for providing this user
manual, and thank you Onno for volunteering to take care of this.

Just a couple thoughts: for appropriate
tracking, there needs to be a Bugzilla item created with this contribution
attached to it. The final document posted on the EPF web site will have
to contain the standard EPL license statement at the bottom of each page.
Given the length of this document, I'm afraid it will have to go through
Eclipse legal approval. Onno, please confirm with emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
 if that is needed, or if just
an attachment to Bugzilla will suffice.

Thanks again.

Ricardo Balduino.

From:	Onno van der Straaten <onno.van.der.straaten@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	02/24/2010 12:53 AM
Subject:	Re: [epf-dev] EPF Manual
Sent by:	epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

Hi Bjorn,
It got through in the end? I can see the text and I can open the file.

This looks to me like a very useful and comprehensive document on EPF.
Nice work! Do you want to contribute this to the EPF community? If this
is the case I think we can publish it on the EPF site with the other Getting
Started stuff. I am willing to take care of
that if there are no objections to posting it there.

The developer list 'was' also used btw for sending inputs on EPF Composer
but it has not been used that way recently. IMHO the dev list should be
used this way, to discuss amongst other things, ideas on EPF Composer.
The dev list discussion and sharing of ideas opinions could lead to a record
being created in Bugzilla for more formal tracking of a change/request.

There is also a newsgroup but that group is more focused on supporting
end users. So the newsgroup could also be a good place to share this work
with the community. Or we can do both: add to the EPF site and share the
link in the newsgroup.

Best Regards,
Onno

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:37 PM, The Viking on the French
Riviera <bjorn.tuft@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I must be doing something wrong in attempting to communicate
with the EPF developer community.  I have sent the following text
and file multiple times to the epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
list but it does not seem to get through.  I have noticed that the
mailing list is mostly used for coordination purposes.  The wiki seems
to be used for the practices and I am not quite sure how to send inputs
concerning the EPF Composer itself.

---

I have written a manual for the EPF Composer,
containing installation and configuration instructions, tutorials and a
user manual.  It is a draft version, created from the help files and
from the experience gathered while experimenting with the application.
 
One point bothered me in the EPF Composer.  I would have found it
more natural to have the Plug-ins split into two different types: Method
Plug-ins and a Process Plug-ins.  It does not seem natural, once the
subject area has been nicely decomposed into an hierarchical model with
sub-areas having their own plug-ins and content packages, to have to have
processes in one of these plug-ins access the method content in the other
plug-ins.  The need for the processes to use the services of an outside
service, i.e. a default configuration, to be able to access the content
in the other plug-ins, makes it even more convoluted.  It would be
more logical to separate out the processes code from the method content
plug-in into a process plug-in type and move/copy the code from the configuration’s
"Plug-in and Package" selection over to this new plug-in type
so that the process by its very nature can access other method content
plug-ins/packages.  The Configuration would then no longer have the
hybrid functions of both providing access assistance to processes and configuration
for publishing.  It would seem to be a cleaner separation: the method
content plug-in provides static method content, the process plug-in provides
processes and configuration provides configurations for publishing.
 
It seems that the authors of EPF Practices have made the same observation,
since they have created a method plug-in with the name of "Process",
accessing content packages in the "Practice" method content plug-in.
 
Regards,
 
Bjorn 

Bjorn Tuft

_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev

_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev