[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gmt-dev] Outsider View
> If I read through the posts, I see comments like Eclipse not beeing well
> suited, and like taking single tools as starting points, like speaking
> abstract syntax, rather than the standard means for abstract syntaxt in
> (e.g. MOF).
There are two discussions going on here:
1. About GMT as an "MDA tool component platform",
where MOF etc. is certainly relevant, and where pragmatically a subset of
MOF such as the Ecore from EMF should be sufficient for representing
*models*. However this still leaves open the question of representing *model
transformations* - which in GMT are considered first-class artefacts, where
as part of GMT there are plans to build QVT reference implementations.
2. How to evolve the Fuut-je tool that is part of GMT,
and perhaps to consolidate efforts with other projects such as
openArchitectureWare. For practical use in industry projects we can't wait
for a QVT reference implementation, and template language style
model-to-text transformations are highly relevant. Fuut-je is of course
usable as-is, but there are whole a number of improvements that can be made
to existing tools while a QVT standard evolves.
Much of the current discussion is about point 2.
> Sorry again for comments which some of you may find inappropriate.
Not at all, we welcome input from the community. We want user-driven
priorities in the project! If you have further ideas, let us hear them. And
feel free to join us and help with the implementation as well ;-)
PS: We are aware that the GMT project site is in urgent need of an update.
Tel +64 9 372 3073 | Mobile +64 27 448 3507 | Fax +64 9 372 3534