[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [pmf-dev] Discussion about the 'core' metamodel

Hi Olivier,

 

I think you have a lot of question, and some questions are due to the general project background and project purpose. But email, it’s not best solution. This is why I ask to sync with Jim to help you in the project context. Afterwards, we can communicate more easily.

 

>* Data description : if we embed data description into core metamodel, that forces us to embed databinding into core metamodel.
>I think that the risk is clearly to resrict in the future other data structure that the ones covered at the moment.

Yes, we deal with both. They are necessary to provide a data presentation solution. The purpose of PMF is not only UI control (static) modeling. It deals with data presentation. The concept of UI is widely extended. It is composed of :

1.      UI Structure

2.      UI Dynamic

3.      Page flows

4.      Presentation patterns

 

The Data model is very simple and extensible. It is very similar than Ecore metamodel. I don’t think we restrict other data structure. The data model is defined for the data binding purpose.

 

There are already some description on our Wiki page for the general purpose of PMF.

 


>* UI component modeling : do we need in core metamodel mouse and keyboard support for instance. Even if a huge percentage of the UI support this devices, it will probably not be the case in the future. We are a lot to believe that tactile smartphones will be the next generation of devices, focus and mousemove does not have the same impact on a zoomable UI than in windows or Internet Explorer.

Providing mouse and keyboard or not is not important. The important is the customization. We should enable the PMF final developer can do it.  


>I do not propose to drop the existing work, just to split up the current monolithic metamodel (EMF makes it possible), in order to be able to switch from one data management design to another if needed (please have a look at EMML effort in mashup)
Every suggestion to improve the model, and other proposition are well come. But suggestions and propositions can be taken if the context is filled. PMF deals with a complex contexts, I think we should keep a good approach: from simple to complex. Now, we should focus one simple. And then we add step by step, to become complex and covers everything.   

 

>On the same line, the current UIObject could inherit from a abstract one (in two different metamodels).
Please keep in mind, the genericity in design is no limit. We should consider it when it is necessary. Not for fine.

 

I think you should detail your purpose since I cannot see the necessity by now.

 

Best regards

Yves YNAG

From: pmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olivier Moïses
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 9:46 AM
To: PMF Development team
Subject: Re: [pmf-dev] Discussion about the 'core' metamodel

 

Hi all,

Yves, I am happy that you open this discussion to everybody. It is time. Like you, I believe that this topic is strategical.

I don't think we have a communication problem. Chatting with you is always a pleasure.

Every open source projects support questions and answers about minor details or strategical parts.

If my questions were not accurate enough, please accept my excuses, I will pay more attention to be clearer in the future.

However, since the CVS history shows that you authored 100% of the core metamodel, I guess that you are the best one to give detailed informations/answers.

In order to get more than one line of answer for the questions, I wanted to fill a bug, but I am afraid that it will not give opportunity to everyone to participate.
There is only 4 committers in PMF, at the moment, and I think that this questions should be asked to more than them.

As I explained in previous post, my first concern is about the coverage of the core metamodel.We don't need to close doors.

Regarding the question you did not understand (and once again sorry for that), I asked it one more time with other words.
Please, as the author of the PMF core metamodel, give us more than one line of explanation.
You made a great first work.

Here is my question :

The current PMF core metamodel mixes different level of details.

* Data description : if we embed data description into core metamodel, that forces us to embed databinding into core metamodel.
I think that the risk is clearly to resrict in the future other data structure that the ones covered at the moment.

* UI component modeling : do we need in core metamodel mouse and keyboard support for instance. Even if a huge percentage of the UI support this devices, it will probably not be the case in the future. We are a lot to believe that tactile smartphones will be the next generation of devices, focus and mousemove does not have the same impact on a zoomable UI than in windows or Internet Explorer.


I do not propose to drop the existing work, just to split up the current monolithic metamodel (EMF makes it possible), in order to be able to switch from one data management design to another if needed (please have a look at EMML effort in mashup)
On the same line, the current UIObject could inherit from a abstract one (in two different metamodels).



Thanks a lot,

Olivier



2009/12/13 yves (yingmin) yang <yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Jim,

 

Please help me to give a general presentation of PMF to Olivier. I believe it is best solution to get him in the context of project quickly.

 

Thanks

yves

From: pmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pmf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olivier Moïses
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 1:34 AM


To: PMF Development team
Subject: Re: [pmf-dev] Discussion about the 'core' metamodel

 

Yves,



PMF is an open source project. That means that every design decision could be discussed.
Since if is in incubation phase and since there is no big documentation, I ask you to pay attention to the asked questions and to answer bigger explainations.
If we want to start to create a good documentation we need a better understanding of the concepts.

What we need now is to exchange and compare our own ideas in order to do the better for this open source project.
What I understood about PMF, and please tell me if I am wrong, is not a rewrite of HTML/_javascript_ in EMF.
I did not see your point about my last question and I need more explanations :

Why do we need to deals data in UI model ?
Data are not part of UI model, the binding between data and UI is depending on data. The common point of you is to separate Data from UI. Could you please explain me clearly wha

2009/12/12 yves (yingmin) yang <yves.yang@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>As I explained,  my main concern is about the relations between databinding model, datamodel and UI model. Do we need to embbed the two/three concepts in the same metamodel/model ?

What’s the problem?

>Especially at this level of abstraction ?
>For instance JFace and EMF databinding are non intrusive, they defines binding outside of the UI model.

It is not PMF’s responsibility to take care of the specific databinding model. It is the role of integration. We need to just model the databinding  in PMF.

yves


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

 

Internal Virus Database is out of date.


Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2306 - Release Date: 08/16/09 06:09:00


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

 

Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.58/2306 - Release Date: 08/16/09 06:09:00