[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Hi all,
a few of us discussed privately what should be part of the upcoming release
which is currently planned for the end of September. Since everybody
interested in this project should describe his/her opinion, we'll open up
this discussion:
Concerning the changes for release 0.5.0:
>(Chris:) aspect integration
This should be our core feature for the upcoming release, all others might
be neglected if the time is running out in my opinion.
-(Mickael:) Custom Property Descriptor should be included in my opinion
-(Mickael): Restructuring the applications
Since we should have a consistent set of tools, I would like to postpone
this feature to version 0.6.0 (or 1.0): restructuring the Applications in
the metamodel does not only mean as a consequence that the update mechanism
for loading older workflow files needs to be changed in a hard way, but also
that the existing model transformations and code generations (which we
partly should include into the release) need to be changed, too. And I don't
think that we will have the time to adapt the JWT2BPMN, JWT2XPDL,
JWT2STP-IM, JWT2BPEL (=Wf-Codegen), etc. transformations till the end of
September. So I'd prefer to leave this feature out of this release.
>>(Mickael:) I'll try to spend some time on bug 240502 (extensions to add
listener when a property is modified) and find an elegant way to implement
this extension in JWT. If I succeed to do it in time, this feature could
also be integrated in JWT 0.5
If you find some time this would be a great feature, but it's only two weeks
left till the end of September, so maybe we should concentrate on the other
issues first!?
> (Chris:) source out meta model?
Would be nice, but does also affect many other projects that will for the
future not only be dependent of jwt-we, but also of jwt-metamodel.
> (Chris:) internal conversion to 0.5 (updater etc.)
This definitely needs to be changed (since the core package of the metamodel
has now been changed)
> (Chris:) some small fixes/additions
Could you give some examples? Probably the things that have already been
written on your wiki site!?
> (Chris:) update the wiki pages
Agree.
(Florian:)
-Additionally, as with every review we need a presentation summarizing all
changes of the new release. Due to the new and changed project reviews (see
email of Anne Jacko from 10/09/2008) the reviews are probably not as a telco
anymore, but normally simply via email and IPzilla discussion. Nevertheless,
the necessary files need to be prepared: update of the IP-log, presentation,
project plan (see
http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/release-review.php).
-As Bjorn asked us we need to create a project plan until the end of
September nevertheless: this means: what are our plans for next year, when
do we plan to have releases, will we graduate into a top-level-project or as
subproject of another project, etc.
-We should decide which plugins of the CVS should be shipped with the new
release: which shall be part of the feature we'll need to create that will
then be uploaded on the update-site, too.
My opinion would be to include: jwt-we, jwt-transformation-base,
jwt-transformation-jwt2bpmn, jwt-we-view-uml, jwt-xpdl, jwt-conf-model,
(maybe jwt-metamodel if we make this till the end of September), (what about
jwt-monitoring?, is this already stable?)
Already released and maybe needs updates: jwt-we-action-doc (or
jwt-we-doc?); {Comment: we definitely need to go over the CVS and say again
which parts are not up-to-date anymore, when we're finished with the aspect
integration.}
Other opinions, wishes and thoughts are welcome,
best regards,
Florian
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Christian Saad [mailto:saad.christian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: 16 September 2008 15:33
An: 'Mickael Istria'; 'Florian Lautenbacher'; Marc Dutoo
Betreff: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: metamodel extension prototype available
Hi Mickael,
Thank you for your additions.
Since the custom property descriptor works fine and there doesn't seem to be
any development on an official EMF implementation, I think that this feature
would also be a great addition to the upcoming release (what are your
opinions Marc, Florian?).
Concerning Bug 240502 (custom listener):
I didn't think about this in detail, but possibly this could be implemented
by adding kind of a CustomListenerAdapter to the ResourceSet when the model
is loaded (compare Palette.java) that collects all registered custom
listener from the extension and delegates the notification if the
notification-eclass-type equals the ext.point-eclass-type.
A current problem that could emerge when restructuring the applications in
the meta model is the conversion of old workflow files to the new format.
This is because, unfortunately, the current converter implementation is
based on EMF, meaning that it can handle only old files that can be loaded
into the new meta model structure (and then apply changes to them),
otherwise it will completely fail to load the old model. A possible solution
would be to use another (syntax-based) update mechanism (I'm thinking of
e.g. JET or XSLT).
Regards,
Chris
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Mickael Istria [mailto:mickael.istria@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. September 2008 14:21
An: Christian Saad; Java Workflow Toolbox
Betreff: Re: AW: AW: AW: AW: AW: metamodel extension prototype available
Hi all,
I am sorry for not having time to take a deeper look into metamodels
extensions and aspects, I am currently working on another project for Open
Wide and never get enough time to try this.
Just a few add-on to the list of feature to be added in JWT 0.5 in my
opinion
- bug 240499 (custom PropertyDescriptor in properties sheet), and the sample
for Java Application could be integrated, if the implementation I proposed
is OK for you.
- I'll try to spend some time on bug 240502 (extensions to add listener when
a property is modified) and find an elegant way to implement this extension
in JWT. If I succeed to do it in time, this feature could also be integrated
in JWT 0.5
- I really think it would be better to have refactored Application Package
for release 0.5. I'll also try to design a diagram on this topic as soon as
possible to propose some modifications, hoping again that I'll get enough
time.
Regards,
Mickael
