[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [modeling-pmc] Contribution: template engine for GMF
|
Ed,
Let me question the 'proper process' term
:) What's wrong with GMF having template engine tailored for its own needs? If
there was an engine/project already and I'd try to parallel it, that might be
wrong. There's no project yet, nor even the proposal is finished, let alone
deliverables. To me, it sounds like few months. Few months mean no chances for
GMF 2.0 to use it - there are certain changes we can't afford to make in M6, for
example. Delaying use of technology for a year just because later there *may*
appear 'official' implementation doesn't sound as justification for 'improper'.
Moreover, switch to the 'official' implementation is the goal; intention of the
contribution is just to make it happen in 2.0
timeframe.
GMF team is not going to dedicate its
efforts to work on template engine, it's a mere tool for the team to solve some
problems more efficiently. The engine is mature enough for us to just use
it.
Sandboxing activities might sound as a solution,
though I doubt can be done without severely affecting ongoing GMF work for
(again) few months.
Reusing what is there in GMT is not an option
because of ANTLR dependency and few other third-party libraries (e.g. code
formatting)
Best wishes,
Artem Tikhomirov
Artem,
Being terminally
impatient, I can certainly relate to your desire to take action now and not
wait around for a bunch of administrative delays. But that being said,
the proper process here really is to get this M2T proposal approved and then
do this work within the bounds of that project. Also keep in mind that
any use of LPG by any project still needs to be legal approved even though OCL
is already approved to use it; of course this will go much faster since the
due diligence is already complete. Could your activities take place in a
sandbox (i.e., not in public CVS) until this M2T thing is approved? Or
could you simply reuse what's in GMT now until a syntax equivalent version of
it is available from M2T?
Sven and Paul,
Do you guys
have an ETA for when the M2T proposal will be ready to submit to the EMO?
(The MDT proposal has already been submitted.)
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto:
merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
"Artem Tikhomirov"
<Artem.Tikhomirov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/22/2006 11:07 AM
|
Please respond
to
PMC members mailing list
<modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
|
To
| <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
cc
| Sven Efftinge
<sven@xxxxxxxxxxx>, voelter@xxxxxxx
|
|
Subject
| [modeling-pmc] Contribution:
template engine for GMF |
|
Hello,
I'm writing to inform the PMC about intent to provide
significant code contribution to one of Modeling projects, namely GMF. The
contribution is template engine, to be used along with JET engine, which is
the only template engine used in GMF now.
This new template engine is
based on Xpand template engine which is part of openArchitectureWare
framework, GMT project (http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/oaw). It's
stripped-down version of the framework, with pieces relevant and essential
only for code generation left. All dependencies from 3rd party libraries were
removed and the only one left - parser/grammar framework (ANTLR 2.7), has been
replaced with LPG library (one EMFT uses for OCL). Rest of the original code
is licensed under EPL.
Xpand approach to code generation is different
from JET's and proved to be much more convenient for some tasks we face with
GMF templates. Also, one of initial plan items for GMF states support for
flexible method of generation
(https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=114207), thus new engine helps
both GMF developers and GMF users to express their 'textual' intentions with a
language they feel most suitable.
oAW framework and Xpand in particular
are being considered as initial contributions to Model to Text project. Also,
M2T project might have support to switch template engines. However, project
set up and first deliveries are points in distant future (months), and that
just means "no" for GMF 2.0. Using GMF-owned component allows us to start
using new engine soon. Syntax of the new engine is almost identical to that of
original, and there won't be a problem to switch to M2T deliveries once they
are out. Note, however, that proposed contribution in not kind of 'throw away'
stuff, pieces of it might find their way into M2T contributions (e.g. LPG
grammars, test cases, patches and improvements)
Size of the
contribution is about 10KLOC of handwritten code plus few grammar definitions
and LPG generated code. Contribution is thoroughly covered with unit tests
(200+).
I'll need PMC approval to proceed with contribution
questionnaire (http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf and
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/ContributionQuestionnairePart1-v1.0.php). Please
let me know your opinion and feel free to ask any question about the
contribution. Thank you!
Best wishes,
Artem Tikhomirov
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing
list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
