Re: [jwt-dev] Feedbacks on JWT extensions from Bull Team.

[Mickael Istria <mickael.istria@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Marc,

I think the best way to integrate your contributions is to open a bug 
where you attach a patch with your modifications and some comments this 
contribution.
Then any interested contributor can take a look at it and maybe propose 
some improvements and ensure your patch conforms to Eclipse requirements 
(really important for Galileo).

Once everybody is ok, we will let you commit it to the jwt-we head.

Thus, please open a bug and attach your code (as a patch if possible). 
If possible, please also attach your Bonita extension to facilitate the 
"review". Then you'll get feedback and approval for commit.

Regards,
Mickael

Marc Blachon a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Pierre gave feedbacks two weeks ago about Bull work on the concept of 
> FactoryRegistry.
> I did the required two steps listed previously by Pierre:
>    - resolve JWT compilation issues
>    - resolve conflicts between our modifications of jwt-we and yours
> And I'm now ready to propose our modifications for a commit.
> How can we proceed in order to commit these modifications ?
>
> Note: I'm not yet JWT committer but Pierre is and can do it quickly.
>
> Regards,
> Marc.
>
>
> Pierre Vigneras a écrit :
> > Sorry for a long time without feedbacks. Here is the status on our side.
> >
> > 1. We started from a complete checkout of JWT that we committed on 
> > our own forge for our convenience (can test things without breaking 
> > JWT..., By the way, at that time, none of us were committers).
> >
> > 2. Refactor JWT so it fits our requirements. We implemented the 
> > concept of FactoryRegistry as an extension point. This registry 
> > contains all factories used by JWT : ImageFactory, FigureFactory, 
> > EditPartFactory, and PaletteFactory. JWT has been modified to provide 
> > a default FactoryRegistry which provide the same behaviour (aka same 
> > factory implementation) as before.
> >
> > 3. Create a Bonita extension of JWT that fulfill our requirements. 
> > Basically, Bonita provides another implementation of the 
> > FactoryRegistry through the extension point. This implementation is 
> > smart enough to use some stuff of JWT (some icons, some figures, some 
> > editparts) *and* some of ours (our BPMN icons, our BPMN figures, our 
> > own editparts). Thus, from our point of view, extending not only 
> > means adding but also removing some parts, and adapting others. This 
> > is done by the factory patterns that is both quite simple and very 
> > powerful. Currently the EditPartFactory does not fulfill our 
> > expectation in terms of software quality but it works. We are working 
> > on a nicer solution (currently, a classloader has to be passed to JWT 
> > so it can load the correct Bonita class).
> > All this work is currently in our forge at the following location :
> > JWT Extended Prototype : 
> > http://svn.forge.objectweb.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/bonita/trunk/jwt-we-proto/ 
> >
> >
> > Bonita Extension on top of JWT extended prototype :
> > http://svn.forge.objectweb.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/bonita/trunk/studio/
> >
> > 4. Marc Blachon did a cvs checkout of JWT in order to see and resolve 
> > conflicts, and to start the merging of our proposition 
> > (FactoryRegistry and JWT-only implementations). Unfortunately, he 
> > found some compilation issues with the new JWT versions that he was 
> > unable to solve. He is currently on leave.
> > Next steps will be :
> > 1. Resolve current JWT compilation issues ;
> > 2. Resolve conflicts between our modifications of JWT and yours.
> > 3. Propose our modifications for a commit.
> > 4. Possibly Commit (depending on feedbacks).
> >
> > Regards.
> >