AW: [jwt-dev] problem in the WE

["Christian Saad" <christian.saad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mickael,

> Hi Christian,
> 
> > just a quick question: I've got a problem running the HEAD version of
> > the WE because of an error in the plugin.xml: It complains that the
> > dnd extension point cannot be found. Do you have this problem too or
> > did I mess something up?
> >
> I don't have such problem...

I edited a bit in the plugin.xml and suddenly it went away although compare
shows no changes... Strange...


> > In a completely different matter, I'm currently wondering, since WE
> > now depends on the conf and property plugins, if we could combine
> them
> > into one or two plugins (throw together model and edit code and maybe
> > even properties and conf if they're needed anyway) as to prevent the
> > separation into too many single plugins. I don't know about you but I
> > always get confused with too many projects in my workspace ;) Also it
> > could simplify the version management in the future and clear up the
> > CVS a bit. What's you opinion?
> >
> 
> If we merge model and edit code, there will be one day where we will
> have to go back and separate them, just as it is now happening for WE
> metamodel.
> I'm however in favor of merging conf and property, since they are
> actually the same feature, and than someone who consumes aspects must
> consume both.
> For sure it will be easier for us to develop with less plugins, but it
> will be more difficult for extenders to consume JWT. Then, we have to
> be
> careful about such huge refactorings. Moreover, models are part of our
> APIs, which means that we must do everything necessary to avoid their
> (APIs and containment plugins) version to change.
> IMHO, version management will be more difficult if we merge plugins and
> if we create unjustified coupling.

Hmm, the reason why I thought we could merge model and edit code was that I
currently can't think of a scenario where one needs to have them separated.
With the metamodel I was actually going for the put-all-model-stuff-together
approach, so it currently contains ecore, templates, generated model and
edit and the commands which are not specific to the WE so that everything
for generating, using, editing and displaying (in the sense of
itemproviders) the model is in one place, which I think in the case of the
core model makes really sense but maybe not for the conf-model? I'm just a
bit concerned that as the code is split up into more and more places the
project in a whole may become more difficult for us to maintain.

Best regards,
Chris