| [gmf-dev] Conversation starter... |
|
Hello All, First of all, I just want to again thank all who have
presented potential contributions, those who will, and those who have provided
feedback and expressed interest in GMF. We have a bit of a lull before the next presentations on the
20th and 27th, so I think it is a good time to begin
discussing what our impressions are so far regarding the starting point for
GMF. To start the thread, I will offer my perspective (with the understanding
that we still have GME, Patternset, Sybase, and VE to review). For the runtime framework, I think it’s pretty clear
that the IBM contribution is desirable. Although portions of their
contribution may ultimately find a home in EMF and possibly GEF, it seems like
a good choice to be the target of the generation framework portion of GMF. The AGG portion of the Tiger project seems intriguing as a
means to define operations in a visual manner, although my feeling is that it
may suffer from scalability issues in large, complex diagram definitions.
However, I think we should investigate it more closely for inclusion in GMF, if
not as part of an initial milestone. The Borland prototype is progressing well and is currently
being refactored to better align with the requirements. Also, less
attention is being paid to the runtime target in light of the pending IBM
contribution. We hope to have this contribution available for close
review at the July kickoff meeting, if not beforehand. Merlin’s mapping model approach is something
we’d like to emulate/extend and welcome Joel’s feedback and
participation in this area. In the case of M1 and oAW, as neither have a basis in EMF,
and with the expectation that it would be IBM’s runtime we would target
for generation after refactoring, I’m not sure where that leaves us aside
from leveraging their experience and future contributions. Please provide your comments and feedback for
discussion. We need to maintain an active and diverse community,
particularly following this contribution review phase. And as mentioned,
now seems like a good time to discuss contributions, approaches, and
architecture, as we have some time before the next reviews. Thanks again to all. Best Regards, Rich Richard
C. Gronback Borland Software Corporation 860 227 9215 |