[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jwt-dev] JWT meta model changes

Hi Marc,

thanks for the update. Seems we won't be changing too much (makes life easier) :)

* InformationType is still required by Mastek
* Input/OutputParameter by OpenWide

I've updated the table accordingly.


Am 30.04.2010 20:04, schrieb Marc Dutoo:
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

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


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 ;) ).


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,


-----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


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


jwt-dev mailing list

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

Attachment: JWTMMChanges_v2.xls
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet