|RE: [pmf-dev] Basic rules of PMF and eclipse talks|
>I don't see any significant problem with hosting the
Wazaabi technology in PMF. If the transformation engine turns out
to be generally useful, it can be moved to M2M later.
I've always imagined and expected PMF to be an umbrella project to explore
interesting UI modeling technologies.
It is what I'm doing exactly. I think the situation is clear for everyone
that PMF should be in neutral position regarding all runtime engines.
I'm still not sure what exactly a runtime engine is nor is
it clear to me why PMF should be neutral. I expect a strong focus on
Eclipse but not to the exclusion anything else.
said, each technology engine should stay in their category such M2M, M2T,
and "the specialized uses of these types of things" (for me, it is the same
as "integration with PMF") is part of PMF.
M2M is certainly for general model transformation, but if there's
transformation technology specifically focused on UI models, that should be
fine to exist in PMF.
I declare here: I don't exclude one or some technologies. I exclude NONE
from PMF Project. Or I exclude EVERYONE (including me) from the PMF Core.
For two reasons,
1. It is the key to make this project successful, Otherwise, PMF will
become a battle field of all technologies.
My sense is that the declaration not to be a battle field is
what's making it a battle field.
I met already this situation during the project preparation phase.
2. It is defined in the project scope.
If we need to extend the cope to bundle other technologies, I think we
should follow the eclipse project rule by passing "project review".
I really don't think anyone is going to complain about scope
encroachment within the modeling project. I'd only be concerned about
encroaching on the scope of other top level projects not within modeling.
I think there is only a hosting problem of the technologies, which are not
yet part of either M2T or M2T. Can PMF host them? Or can we incubate them?
So are you suggesting that some parts of Wazaabi are really
a general purpose model-to-model transformation technology? One might
argue that EMF Tiger
should have been in M2M but much of what's in M2M is focused on transforming
one model into another, not on transforming/modifying a existing
The hosting means, they can stay in the PMF, but it is not part of the PMF
core. It is no need to pass by "project review".
The incubation is different, they have to pass by PMC.
I don't see any significant problem with hosting the Wazaabi
technology in PMF. If the transformation engine turns out to be
generally useful, it can be moved to M2M later.
Behalf Of Ed Merks
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 12:14 PM
To: Hallvard Trætteberg
Cc: PMF Development team; 'Kenn Hussey'
Subject: Re: [pmf-dev] Basic rules of PMF and eclipse talks
What Hallvard describes seems pretty simple. I've always imagined and
expected PMF to be an umbrella project to explore interesting UI
modeling technologies. I'm not happy seeing arguments about excluding
specific things that appear highly relevant and useful and also don't
appear to have an obvious home elsewhere in the modeling stack. If
folks have difficulty collaborating I'm inclined to partition the
project to make room for different approaches so I'd suggest focusing on
finding a way to be inclusive rather than finding reasons to exclude
Hallvard Trætteberg wrote:
yves (yingmin) yang wrote:I'm having a hard time following this conversation. It's soundinglike some technology Olivier says is needed to provide a completesolution is being excluded from the scope of PMF. I'm not sureexactly what's being excluded or why though. Certainly a generalpurpose template engine should be part of M2T and a general purposetransformation engine should be part of M2M, but specialized uses ofthese types of things I would expect to be part of PMF.Yes, it is what I called “integration part”.I don't know the details of this myself, but here's how I understand it:- Olivier wants to contribute Wazaabi, since it is a good example of amodel-based UI runtime and clearly relevant in an M2M approach(whether live or batch-oriented).- Yves argues for excluding Wazaabi, since it is a runtime target andnot the kind of higher-level model that PMF is meant to be.- In between there is what Yves calls "integration part", whichprovides the necessary integration between PMF and a runtime target.- There are three questions for which a "yes" means including Wazaabiin PMF: 1) Wazaabi is not a runtime target, but a higher-level model(at least high enough). 2) Can Wazaabi be considered integrationbetween PMF and the targets Wazaabi supports (SWT, JSF, ...). If yes,it's should be part of PMF. 3) If Wazaabi is a runtime target it couldstill be part of PMF, if it demonstrates a particularly interesting case.
pmf-dev mailing list
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
pmf-dev mailing list
Virus Database is out of date.