Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] MDT 2.0.0 vs OMG 2.0 / 2.2?

[Laurent Goubet <laurent.goubet@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Adolfo,

This first entry seems to rule out any "small cost" compatibility 
indeed. If we are to adopt the 2.2 specification, I am now totally in 
favor of dropping compatibility with the 2.0 spec.

I agree that clients needing to be compliant with 2.0, can use MDT OCL 1.3.

Laurent

Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera a écrit :
> Hi Laurent,
>
> I partially agree. I'm not sure it will be with a small cost, 
> regardless the small or big that list is. Look at the first entry in 
> the table I created yesterday:
>
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/MDT/OCL/OCL_2.0_API_Changes
>
> ElementType and TypeType doesn't exist anymore. Are we keeping those 
> metaclasses in the metamodel just for supporting the two versions?. 
> Are we creating a new metamodel (actually, 3 ecore files more) ?. Are 
> we keeping two grammars and therefore two parsing infrastructures? 
> .... That could be a crazy task, IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
> Adolfo.
>
> Laurent Goubet escribió:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd also rather see us focus our efforts on supporting OCL 2.2 as 
> > best as can be instead of splitting the dev between the adoption of 
> > this new spec and the disambiguation/support of things that have 
> > changed since OCL 2.0.
> >
> > The list of changes (as in "break") between the two versions might be 
> > limited enough for us to maintain both version at small cost ... but 
> > if this list becomes too large it will rapidly become an ordeal to 
> > make changes towards the adoption of 2.2.
> >
> > Laurent
> >
> > Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera a écrit :
> > > Relating the following bug https://bugs.eclipse.org/259031 recently 
> > > replied by Ed.
> > >
> > > I'm confused. Are we going to support both specification versions in 
> > > MDT-OCL 2.0.0?. I believe that it could be a chaos if we try tackle 
> > > that challenge.
> > >
> > > I think that must clearly specify what are we going to do, and 
> > > update the wiki with our ideas. We are 4 thinking heads who must 
> > > align our thoughts in the same way...
> > >
> > > >From my point of view, we must bury OMG OCL 2.0 specification and 
> > > change the implementation to adopt the new OCL 2.2 one. Keeping two 
> > > implementations to support both specifications doesn't seem to be 
> > > reasonable, in my opinion. If a client would like to use an OMG OCL 
> > > 2.0 compliant implementation instead of the new one, he just have to 
> > > use MDT OCL 1.3. What do you think?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Adolfo.
> > > --
> > >
> > >     *Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera*
> > > adolfosbh(at)opencanarias(dot)com 
> > > <mailto:adolfosbh%28at%29opencanarias%28dot%29com>
> > > C/Elías Ramos González, 4, ofc. 304
> > > 38001 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE
> > > Tel.: +34 922 240231 / +34 617 718268
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
> > > mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
> > >   
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mdt-ocl.dev mailing list
> > mdt-ocl.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-ocl.dev
>
> --
>
> 	*Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera*
> adolfosbh(at)opencanarias(dot)com 
> <mailto:adolfosbh%28at%29opencanarias%28dot%29com>
> C/Elías Ramos González, 4, ofc. 304
> 38001 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE
> Tel.: +34 922 240231 / +34 617 718268