Re: [jwt-dev] JWT meta model changes

[Marc Dutoo <marc.dutoo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chris, Florian, all

I know that we know have our "magical" converter to handle metamodel 
evolution :) But still, don't remove features that can be useful.

Please add a column that says for each evolution how the converter 
transformation will handle it if not obvious, or whether it won't be 
supported.


So I agree with Florian, and further :

1. remove information type OK

2. merge input and output parameters NO we are using it today to deduce 
the signature of service calls ! Or another idea about that ?
I agree we could add (web)service specific attributes or aspects to 
define the signature, but it would be a duplicate of the parameters 
attribute anyway.
Further, being able to deduce the service signature from the standard 
model is a pretty powerful feature I think.

3. remove functions OK

4. and 5. as Florian says (add new ones, but keep the old ones)

6. move to executable node OK

7.  and 9. java application OK

8. remove application type OK

10. webservice application OK cosmetics, supported evolution

11. remove primitive types OK

Regards,
Marc

Christian Saad a écrit :
> Hi Florian,
>
> thanks for your input, I've updated the list accordingly. It seems I 
> misunderstood the requirements for AND/XORNode, so I added them as 
> additional abstract nodes.
>
> I also added the primitive types for removal since I couldn't find any 
> concrete reference to them in the meta model anyway and sent a message 
> to Ravi as Mastek asking about the informationType.
>
> Unfortunately the GSoC currently doesn't look so good but maybe we can 
> provide another funding here (like PvS-SoC ;) ).
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> Am 23.04.2010 18:24, schrieb Florian Lautenbacher:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > thanks for the detailed list. I have some objections of unifying the
> > DecisionNode/MergeNode and ForkNode/JoinNode while removing those 
> > nodes at
> > the same time (I'm not sure whether this was the intended meaning of
> > unification); as those nodes are typical for UML and are heavily used 
> > in all
> > of our models as well as have different EditPartPolicies I would like 
> > to see
> > those elements stay but rather get more abstract nodes 
> > *additionally*. What
> > do others think about it?
> >
> > Concerning the attribute informationType I'm unsure whether our Indian
> > colleagues are using it and if yes, for which purpose. I think I've once
> > seen a model which made use of them.
> >
> > I'm not sure who currently uses the primitive types, so I would agree to
> > remove those, too.
> >
> > Concerning the swimlanes: is there already a decision whether the GSoC
> > student can assist us here?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Florian
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im
> > Auftrag von Christian Saad
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2010 17:29
> > An: Java Workflow Toolbox
> > Betreff: [jwt-dev] JWT meta model changes
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > the long overdue list of proposed metamodel changes. This is supposed to
> > become the detailled list of changes which will then be applied to the
> > meta model once everybody gives their +1
> >
> > Regards,
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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