Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [modeling-pmc] Status of UML2 Tools

Philipp,

Comments below.

On 29/11/2012 6:17 PM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG wrote:
Hi, Ed.
Comments below.

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:41:05 +0100
From: Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>
To: modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [modeling-pmc] Correction on wrong "UML2 Tools"
	termination info
...
The review document states that "The project is a subproject of the 
to-be-terminated MDT project. Its contents will be migrated as samples 
for the GMF project."

Having said that, I'm more inclined to do whatever the right thing is 
(in contrast to following the letter of the review document).
This is exactly what I'm expecting to happen.  They're simply samples 
not a useable tooling.  So the project is to be terminate and the code 
is to be migrated as a GMF Tools sample.

For me it does not make a difference whether it is called "subproject" or "GMF Tools Sample".
So let's call it a sample then.

Should we care?
I don't, but I can only speak for myself.

Why do you say "not a useable tooling"? Did you test them?
The general impression I've been given by folks using it is that it's incomplete and not product quality.  It's also been unsupported for years, so the community is redirected to use Papyrus for the purpose of graphical UML editing...

As I said, UML2 Tools editors reflect (and will reflect more accurately in the future) what can generated with
GMF Tooling for the UML2 metamodels. Papyrus reflects what can be achieved by fine tuning
and improving it with programming.
Yes, that's what the end users want.

Since Papyrus intends to backport their improvements to GMF Tooling, and since GMF Tooling
intends to do special features to better support Papyrus, both GMF contributes to making
Papyrus more usable, and Papyrus contributes to make UML2 Tools more usable.
Ultimately though the end users who want a graphical UML editor will want to use Papyrus.  It's great that GMF Tooling will improve and it's especially nice when there are good sample, and even more so when  the tools can directly produce such higher quality samples.

I think we should in general be less absolute in our judgements. "not usable" is a strong statement.
Perhaps incomplete is a better word.  I can't judge personally.  It's just a reflection of what I've been told, so hearsay...

Regards, Philipp


Focus of the UML2 Tools project is now:
- demonstrate what can be generated with GMF Tooling 3.0 for the UML2 
Metamodels of all UML2 diagram types.
- test advanced features from Papyrus, that are backported to GMF 
Tooling.
- validate new GMF Tooling features before they are used in Papyrus 
and other projects using GMF Tooling.

People working on generating UML2 like diagram editors for UML2 like 
metamodels are welcome to contribute to the GMF Tooling subproject 
UML2 Tools" and become committers.
Do you really mean subproject, or is the UML2 Tools code more 
appropriate as example code within GMF Tooling? Do you, for example, 
anticipate that the two code bases will have different sets of 
committers? Is there value in maintaining a separate web presence for 
two separate projects? Will there be separate builds? Or is it just 
two separate Git repositories owned by the one (GMF Tooling) project?
I don't see that it needs to be two separate repositories.
If the UML2 Tools code is really just an aspect of the GMF Tooling 
code, then I recommend that we stick with the letter of the review and 
go ahead with just moving the code from UML2 Tools into GMF Tooling, 
and retire the UML2 Tools project. 
Yes, please do.
People looking for full featured UML2 Tooling should look at Papyrus.
This seems to reinforce my opinion that UML2 Tools code is just an 
aspect/part of GMF Tooling and should not be a project in its own right.
Exactly.
I CC the component leads, if they want to add details.

Regards,
Philipp
On 28.11.2012 18:00, modeling-pmc-request@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From:         Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:         "'PMC members mailing list'" <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:         2012/11/27 01:11 PM"
Subject:         [modeling-pmc] Modeling projects in CVS
Sent by: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



...
Some of the projects on this list are scheduled for termination (UML2
Tools and UMLX) and so will be taken care of naturally.
...
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc

-- 
Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @waynebeaton
Explore Eclipse Projects <http://www.eclipse.org/projects>
EclipseCon 2013 <http://www.eclipsecon.org/2013>


_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/modeling-pmc/attachments/20121129/6ec6c27f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 4312 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/modeling-pmc/attachments/20121129/6ec6c27f/attachment.png>

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

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


End of modeling-pmc Digest, Vol 79, Issue 15
********************************************


Montages AG

Philipp W. Kutter
CEO, Dr. sc. ETH
Montages AG
Stampfenbachstr. 48
CH-8006 Zürich

tel:    +41 44 260 75 57
mob: +41 79 338 06 17
web: www.montages.com


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


Back to the top