Philipp,
I don't imagine what you're planning fits exactly the scope that's
been spelled out. Certainly things have evolved, as you know, since
that scope for MXF was written, i.e., the introduction of delegates
for operations, constraints, and derived features in EMF. The
combination of these things allow behavioral aspects to be defined
directly in the Ecore model in an extensible way that supports
languages like OCL. I'd rather see things like XOCL be part of the
OCL project than to revivew a stillborn cross cutting project.
Better the OCL project diversify...
The new Xcore work is also about model execution (for Ecore), to
some extent, but I'd rather keep that as part of the EMF project,
not move it to a cross cutting project.
I'm not sure how the other PMC members feel about this. In general
we have a large number of dead project that need cleaning up.
Personally, in the future, I'd rather see more life injected into
projects that are currently alive.
Regards,
Ed
On 10/01/2012 6:50 AM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG wrote:
Dear Wayne.
Thanks for the clear directions, we will follow them.
I will start by discussing with prospective Architecture Council
mentors, for the topic at hand and then follow their advice.
Where is the list of the Architecture Council members, and which
projects they already mentor?
Regards, Philipp
On 09.01.2012 20:15, Wayne Beaton wrote:
It seems that by not speaking, the project has spoken. Or
something to that effect.
Now it's in the Modeling PMC's hands. With their unanimous
consent, we can change the project lead and committers. The
easiest thing to do is to replace the project lead and have the
new lead retire the existing committers and nominate the
replacement committers via the portal.
The Modeling PMC has to have a transparent discussion about
this. This discussion--which can be initiated by anyone (either
a member of the PMC, or somebody like Philipp)--should include a
few words stating that the project team has become unresponsive
and that another party has stepped forward to take the helm. The
discussion should include some indication of confidence that the
new project team is ready for the responsibility in terms of
understanding the EDP, working in open source, etc. followed by
a minimum of three +1s and no -1s from the PMC.
My records show that the project is in incubation, but has no
mentors assigned. As part of this reassignment, I'd like to see
at least one Architecture Council mentor identified for the
project.
Thanks,
Wayne
On 01/05/2012 11:44 AM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG wrote:
Agree 100%
As you wrote on 26.4. that you will check with them the
status, I assumed, that the fact that the project is
unresponsive is already here.
How long do we want to wait?
mxf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
should reach the original people, no? Hello: anyone out
there???
Regards, Philipp
On 05.01.2012 15:58, Wayne Beaton wrote:
How does the existing project team feel about
this?
The easiest way to proceed is for the existing project team
to accept your XOCL contribution, move it into the IP
process, and initiate committer elections for the new
developers (citing the contribution as the required
demonstration of merit). Once on board, you can nominate and
elect a new project lead. That lead can retire the inactive
committers. The existing project lead can retire by sending
me a note.
That's the ideal.
If the project team is unresponsive, the Modeling PMC
can--after transparent discussion and unanimous
consent--decide to replace the project lead and committers.
Make sense?
Wayne
On 01/05/2012 09:03 AM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG
wrote:
Dear Wayne.
I have not seen anything since April now. I assume thus
that the project will be either closed, or should be taken
over from another party.
In the meantime we increased activities on our own model
execution framework, and we definitively would like to
take over the project. I cc'd their mail list to see any
reaction from the original people.
The scope of the project needs not be changed, as they
positioned it as an open project, allowing to welcome all
MXF, not only the original proposed one. Thus we will be
open for the original contributions, and others coming
from the TopcaseD area (see discussion on mail list).
In additon to the original scope, we will much more be
focused on project collaboration with other Modeling
projects, mainly those implementing OMG standards, such as
ECore, OCL, QVTO, Acceleo, and DI from TopcaseD. Here the
points we will bring to the scene:
- ECore will be the basis for all metamodels, such that
other modeling projects for persistence (such as CDO) and
different ways to express syntax (visual, textual,
tree/table) can be added easily
- Reuse of _expression_ languages of other projects (OCL,
imperative extension of OCL from QVTO, and newer ones like
XBase)
We especially intend to use the project to make sure that
topics such as dynamic/static binding of operation calls,
overriding/overloading, multiple inheritance are solved
the same way as in ECore/Java. (we filed Bugzillas for
this topic in the OCL project, which where already
partially fixed)
From our side we will contribute one MXF framework called
XOCL, which is simply a set of standardized OCL
annotations for ECore models. This is, as Ed Merks
mentions simply a usage of existing stuff, not much new.
Michael Golubev will bring the knowledge to the scene, how
to do the builds and will help me to follow all the
Eclipse processes. He is the component lead for GMF
Tooling and UML2 Tools.
Thus: there needs nothing to be added to the original
plan.
Please let us know how to proceed.
Regards,
Philipp
On 26.04.2011 14:54, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Hi Philipp./
The project appears to be dead on arrival :-)
I will check with the PMC and project founders to see
what their plans
are. Hopefully you'll see some activity from the
project.
Wayne
On 04/26/2011 05:16 AM, Philipp W. Kutter wrote:
Dear Anne.
Has there been any news since 7.4.2009?
I have neither seen the Eclipse page, nor the initial
code contribution.
Any input welcome. I will as well try to contact the
founders of the
project as soon as I find time.
Regards,
Philipp
Am 07.04.2009 18:47, schrieb Anne Jacko:
Hello all,
Since there has *not* been a request from a member
of the Eclipse
community to hold this review on a conference call,
there will be no
Review Call tomorrow (April 8, 2009).
The EMO has declared this review to be successful
based on the review
docuware and on community feedback. Congratulations
to the MXF team on
their successful review.
Please contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
with any questions. Thanks.
