Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jwt-dev] dynamic properties 
Just to sum up the previous email :

aspect = extensible DynamicProperty
profile =  jwt extension
view = metametamodel = jwt conf & packaging
UI = adapters working on top of the metametamodel, including custom ones for custom UIs in custom tabs
Additionally, a jwt model factory would be nice to instantiate the whole, including adding the required ("singleton") properties and aspects".
Finally, this begs for taking the model + edit + metametamodel (views manager for now) out of jwt-we and in its own, say, jwt-model project. I know it is big, but this is the right time and I think I can do it, besides the installer issues (though I've already used IzPack).
Note that this confirms that the "view" extension point that Florian announced earlier is nothing else than the first incarnation of the "jwt extension" extension point, as Florian already said it himself ("This is a first step for the extension of the metamodel"). 

Regards,
Marc

Marc Dutoo a écrit :

Hi Christian
Thanks for the research work you've done, this feedback, and the interesting solution you propose !
Nice info on the tabbed properties feature. OK, an adapter should do the thing, once the "rest' is ok. 


About dynamic EMF : you're right, it has its limitations.
As you say, it is hard to create a dynamic extension of a static class. It should be doable nonetheless, but the question is : is it worth the effort (see below).
An important limitation is that dynamic and static subelements can't be mixed in a class, meaning that you can't extend an Action with a dynamic containment reference because Action may contain static Point subelements.
[actually, our ideas have a lot in common - see http://wiki.eclipse.org/JWT_Metamodel , and from now on I'll try to match them, ex. "DynamicProperty" / "Aspect"] 

["properties" / "aspects" containment reference]
Therefore, and here it matches one of your conclusions, the right way of extending the jwt mm is to add a static containment reference where we want it to be extensible, in your case a "properties" containment reference that is typed DynamicProperty, and in my case a more open alternative consisting in an "aspects" one that is typed EObject (easy, open) or statically AspectImpl (if we want to bother with allowing to dynamically extend a static Aspect class ; note that being typed dynamically Aspect would forbid to statically extend it, which is a nice possibility).
We agree that extending through such a containment reference also allows to manage "typed extension" i.e. a typed group of properties. 

[external property description and "assigned model elements" / "profile"]
What you also crucially propose is a way to manage the consistency of which extended elements are allowed / available on which element. This is akin to what I termed "profile" in the jwt wiki. I didn't propose a functional or tech spec of it, and I like yours because it is simple. You do it through the cleverly external property description - I thought about putting this info in specific properties of the EMF model like EMF/XML does with ex. "xmlns:prefix", but your way has better separation of concern and more in line with the existing .
However it lacks some features ; for example it adds extended properties on all of its "assigned model elements", though the user would only want to be able to instanciate it on some of them (ex. only configure logging for some of them). 

[versions]
You also propose to manage versions, which I didn't first think of and which has been pointed at since. I agree that it has to be managed at the Model level i.e. at the whole extension level (and not extension element / property by extension element / property).
Comparison of both solutions : mine is more open, yours is better managed. So how about trying to merge it ? Actually, I think it can be done ^^ like this : 


Merging both :
* Opening up the extension type i.e. using extensible Aspect rather than DynamicProperty is more flexible and would provide a extension mechanisme that is consistent from simple, dynamic extensions to complex, tree-like, static extensions.
* Your solution answers simple use cases very efficiently, but it can be implemented on top of mine (by providing in the core model a DynamicProperty that is a dynamic extension of Aspect) without losing its ease of use.
* Managing manage which extension is allowed where is paramount, and using an external metaconf file like yours is a nice idea that is in line with how views are handled today (as your "visible" feature on DynamicProperty confirms), and where we're trying to make them go (an eclipse plugin that not only manages views, but also other packaging and conf related issues like - surprise - extensions).
* I'd like to add in the external metaconf besides "assigned model elements" on DynamicProperty / Aspect the following metaproperties : * "singleton" (meaning it's instanciated everywhere, like you spec'd ; if false the user will be able to add it using the newChild action), * "removable" (false by default, so singleton by default wouldn't be removable, so a feature that may be activated and deactivated would be removable and not singleton). * something like "emfType" / "instanceClassName" / Factory / emf extension file that tells what EMF type to instanciate rather than DynamicProperty, and that would by default by DynamicProperty 

* your version management is great
* UI (ItemProviders) has to be adapted (maybe using Adapters) like you say and also to be able to instanciate types specified in the metaconf file. Views are already displayed in this kind of way, and I've tried some hacks on the getChildDescriptors method fueling the newChild command that tells me it is doable.
* the nowadays jwt-views app or future jwt-packager plugin will have to be able to manage metaconf files.
* the only thing that bugs me is that users WILL have to generate a view / metaconf file to be able to use their extension. This would be nice because extended models could still be opened with only the ecore and not the metaconf. * However, maybe that by "displaying and allowing to create" any other Aspect subtype "provided by in EMFs that are found in an autodiscovery directory" that "are not mentioned in the metaconf file" (just like what I advised for views), we could also achieve this goal ? * or maybe we should just add an "export extended model" feature that would zip together the model, the extended ecores and the metaconf file, to be autodiscovered ;)
* a detail : if an extended workflow model is opened but its ecore extension is not found, nowadays JWT believes this to be an error due to the version of the workflow model file. So the version detection / update algorithm would have to be improved so it would be able to display a "missing extension ecore metamodel" in this case.
So what do you think ? Good enough for a try ? I for one have some time this week ^^ 

Regards,
Marc


PS. about dynamically extending a static class :
First the extended static class can't be interface or abstract (which muddles the model), and secondly the model factory of its container (ex. for extending an Action, ProcessFactory, since it is the factory of Activity that is its container) must be able to handle creation of the extended static class, this way :
org.eclipse.jwt.we.model.processes.ProcessesFactory extensionFactory = new org.eclipse.jwt.we.model.processes.impl.ProcessesFactoryImpl() { 
           @Override
           public EObject create(EClass eClass)
           {
              if ("LogAction".equals(eClass.getName())) {
org.eclipse.jwt.we.model.processes.Action action = createAction(); // the following is required to be able to access custom LogAction features // but it conflicts with Action static subelements ex. Points -_- so doesn't work ((org.eclipse.jwt.we.model.processes.impl.ActionImpl) action).eSetClass(eClass); 
                 return action;
                               }
              if ("Point".equals(eClass.getName())) {
return org.eclipse.jwt.we.model.view.impl.ViewFactoryImpl.eINSTANCE.create(eClass); 
              }
              //return super.create(eClass);
return org.eclipse.jwt.we.model.processes.impl.ProcessesFactoryImpl.eINSTANCE.create(eClass); 
          }



Christian Saad a écrit :


Hi,
I’ve been looking a bit into the “dynamic properties” issue and I’d like to share some early thoughts and experiences concerning this matter.
First of all, the change of the properties view to a version that supports multiple tabs (as described in http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-Tabbed-Properties/tabbed_properties_view.html) is quite simple. The “old” properties can be loaded into the view using an adapter, so there is almost no additional effort to this solution (see attachment). Concerning the new dynamic properties, probably a similar approach can be used (write a propertypage that reads the dynamic properties from the itemproviders, creates the corresponding propertyeditors and can be fitted into the propertyview using the same kind of adapter).
To make the actual additions to the JWT metamodel, I’ve experimented a bit with dynamic EMF. At first, it seemed that possibly the simplest solution to extend existing classes would be to directly inject dynamically created EAttributes or EReferences into the metaobjects because in this case EMF would take care of most issues concerning the management of the new items.
However, I’ve learned that, sadly, it’s not possible to extend existing static metaelements with dynamic structuralfeatures. It is only allowed to create completely new dynamic classes or to subclass existing static classes. Unfortunately this makes the whole process of an almost automatic management of extensible metaelements quite difficult (or maybe I’m just missing an obvious solution).
The alternative would be to create a static metaelement for dynamic properties as described in task 225704 and write code that simulates the behavior of EMF EAttributes or EReferences using instances of this class.
I hope I got the basic idea that is behind this extension mechanism right. To see if this is the case, I drew a small diagram outlining a very concrete implementation of this extension of how I perceived the problem (see attachment). Please correct me if I missed the point or if this would be not viable solution.
The basic idea is that dynamic properties are specified using a small, external meta-model, in which a set of properties is part of a special container element (just like Model is in the JWT metamodel). Sets of dynamic properties can be serialized to and loaded from XMI files by the user or created by Plugins using Eclipse extension points (being converted into the corresponding properties model). This would represent a generic interface to JWT.
Once a set (or multiple sets) of dynamic properties is loaded into JWT, it (they) can be added by the user to a model file. This means that when selecting a ModelElement, the itemprovider searches all sets of activated dynamic properties for properties that were declared for this EClass-type and creates corresponding instances of DynamicPropertyValue. The displaying of the dynamic properties can done by the modified propertypage. 

Regards,

Christian


------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


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

Back to the top