[gmf-dev] What users expect from GMF Tooling, Re: Mof2Text, Acceleo R

["Philipp W. Kutter" <kutter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Mickael.
Michael already answered regarding where to plug in different generators 
from the code-models.
> ...
> From a user point of view, I think what people currently expect from 
> GMF Tooling is, according to what you can read on forum:
> * a release / signs that shows it is alive
Agreed. We do all we can to meet the next SR2, and thanks to the help 
from Ed Merks, Anthony Hunter and others, we almost made it into SR1.
> * integration with other projects
GMF Tooling is deeply integrated with ECore, QVTO, OCL, and (an 
unfortunately old version) of XPand. This is quite a lot.

The next candidate will certainly be CDO/Dawn, and (this was never 
discussed) maybe EEP.

> * more simplicity (more ergonomic editors with higher-level concepts)
There are plenty of ideas for that, and plenty of results to be 
integrated from the experience with the MDT UML2  component.

Any input is certainly welcome here.
> From a GMFT developer point of view, moving to Acceleo would be 
> convenient, but since there are currently not a lot of issues and 
> needs about code generation, I don't think it is worth the effort.
The same holds for any idea to move to the latest version of any other 
code generation framework, including immediate update to the latest 
version of XPand, which is now part of XText2, if I understood right.
> Obviously, if one provides an Acceleo generator that works fully, I 
> think nobody will resist to such an improvement of internal GMFT stuff ;)
Yes, but there needs to be coordination with all GMF Tooling commiters, 
to define the right point in time. Such new templates would need to 
support from the beginning all new extensibility possibilities now 
created in the M2M part of GMF Tooling, and those possibilities are now 
just created
   -> such new templates should be done after those extensibility 
possibilities have been created.

Regards, Philipp