Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [modeling-pmc] Re: New project -- EMF Registry 
The paragraph is much clearer. Thanks.
Is it accurate to say that "The objectives of the EMF Registry project are to provide frameworks that:" 

Thanks,

Wayne

Ed Willink wrote:

Hi Wayne

I hope this is clearer.

-----------------------------
This problem was addressed by the GMT UMLX project, where a Model Registry was 
developed that was independent of any particular modeling project. This
solution migrated to the M2M QVT Declarative project, where an OCL editor
ia available and extended by the QVTc and QVTr editors. Migration of this OCL editor to the MDT OCL project requires a further migration of the Model Registry to avoid an undesirable dependency of a widely used mature project on a very immature one. 

-----------------------------

Rather than reorganise it's easier to just add a Scope before Description.

-----------------------------

*Scope*

The objectives of the EMF Registry project are:

    * to enable modeling tool users to register the location of models
    * to enable modeling tools to locate the registered models


-----------------------------
Regards

    Ed Willink

Wayne Beaton wrote:

I don't understand the last line in the revised paragraph:

In order to support the migration of an OCL editor from M2M QVT
Declarative to MDT OCL, a further migration of the Model Registry is
necessary.

I would also like to see an explicit scope section.
Thanks for identifying the problem with the recommended proposals. I'll look into it. 

Wayne

Ed Willink wrote:

Hi Mike

Comments inline.

    Ed

Mike Milinkovich wrote:

Ed,

A few comments:
(a) This sentence below is indecipherable to me. I know I'm a world famous modeling redneck, but does this seriously need to have _nine_ TLAs in it? Is there any way that this can be explained in some form of human readable 
prose? (Yes, I am grinning while writing this!)
This problem was addressed in a modeling project independent fashion by the GMT UMLX Model Registry which migrated to the M2M QVT Declarative Model Registry. In order to support the migration of an OCL editor from M2M QVT 
Declarative to MDT OCL, a further migration of the Model Registry is
necessary.

How about?
This problem was addressed by the GMT UMLX project. A Model Registry was 
developed that was independent of any particular modeling project. This
solution migrated to the M2M QVT Declarative project. A further
migration is necessary to allow the MDT OCL project to provide the
OCL editor currently forming part of the M2M QVT Declarative project.
(b) This statement below makes me wonder if this _really_ needs to be a separate project? Is "availability" a good enough reason to create a whole new project? (This is really the PMC's call, but I thought I would raise it. 

This proposal advocates making the Model Registry available as an
independent project, facilitating its availability and usage in a modeling 
project independent fashion. An EMFT positioning makes this simple but
critical modeling functionality available to all EMF users eliminating
dependency problems. It avoids the need for a Model Registry migration to 
MDT OCL.
Before EMFT really got going, I proposed this as a direct contribution to EMF. It has instead been bouncing around and been inconveniently accessible to be widely used.
Direct contibution to EMF is an option, but EMF is very mature and so understandably 
resistant to novel functionality. EMFT provides its incubators.
Contribution to EMF/Index was investigated, but EMF/Index is about smart use of known models 
rather than location of models.
A facility for many possible projects needs to be independent even if it is relatively small.
(c) This proposal is missing a Scope section, which we generally consider to be the most important of all. The content seems to be there, so a simple 
re-organization could likely address this concern.

DLTK is a recommended proposal. It has no scope.
Since the content is adequate, is a restructuring necessary. If so, now or when other review comments 
have accrued.

Mike Milinkovich
Office: +1.613.224.9461 x228
Mobile: +1.613.220.3223
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Jacko [mailto:anne.jacko@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: September-15-09 2:19 PM
To: Wayne Beaton; Mike Milinkovich; PMC members mailing list
Cc: Ed Willink
Subject: New project -- EMF Registry

Mike, Wayne, Modeling PMC (cc Ed) --

Please review and comment on the following new proposal from Ed
Willink: http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/emf-registry/

Thanks.

Anne Jacko
Eclipse Foundation
503-784-3788
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

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

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




------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Back to the top