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

[Alexander Igdalov <Alexander.Igdalov@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

Clients that wish to work with the implementation of the OCL 2.0 standard will not be able to use MDT OCL 1.3.x in Helios+ releases. This is because OCL 1.3 branch is for Galileo maintenance only and it would be probably impossible to install 1.3 in Helios (for instance because of incompatibility with the future versions of dependencies, e.g. EMF). Therefore, we need to support both standards in MDT OCL 2.0.0. But I think we should mainly focus on OCL 2.2 support. Since then IMO new features should be added to the part of code which supports the latest standard (or the shared part of code). The part of code responsible for OCL 2.0 should be kept for backward compatibility. Thus IMO the latter is to be updated only in case of very annoying bugs and issues like compatibility with the latest EMF changes, etc.

Cheers,
- Alex.
________________________________________
От: mdt-ocl.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mdt-ocl.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] от имени Laurent Goubet [laurent.goubet@xxxxxxx]
Отправлено: 1 июля 2009 г. 16:24
Кому: MDT OCL mailing list
Тема: Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] MDT 2.0.0 vs OMG 2.0 / 2.2?

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