Re: [tigerstripe-dev] Annotations question.

[Eric Dillon <erdillon@xxxxxxxxx>]

So, as Yuri mentioned below, this "feature" was added for robustness of the
framework, as you'd be losing annotations (and possibly committing the .ann
where annotations have been removed which could be a disaster).

Now, I do agree that having them as "read-only" if the corresponding .jar
definitions are not installed may make sense, simply to avoid confusion.
This won't prevent users from hand-editing the .ann files, but at least will
provide a somewhat more consistent behavior from the UI.

Yuri? Could you make that change, assuming this is not too much work?

Eric


On 10/17/08 1:10 AM, "John Worrell (jworrell)" <jworrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> That is very interesting... It means that in principle we could
> circulate a model with annotations without having to circulate the jars
> that define the annotations and with a slight tweak render them
> read-only.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> JohnW
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tigerstripe-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:tigerstripe-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Yuri Strot
> Sent: 17 October 2008 06:07
> To: Tigerstripe developers list
> Subject: RE: [tigerstripe-dev] Annotations question.
> 
> 
> Hi Richard, John,
> 
> This behavior is a framework feature which was implemented to make TAF
> more stable. Annotation Framework store package definitions of the
> annotation content in the all annotation files. This make possible to
> load and edit annotations even they are defined in the plugins which was
> removed.
> 
> As Eric mentioned some times ago, different users can use different sets
> of annotation types. But if there are no package definitions for
> annotation content, annotation file will be unreadable for EMF and we
> will lose all annotations there (even through some of the stored
> annotations are valid).
> 
> Actually, there is not a problem to make such annotations read-only or
> invisible for user who haven't annotation type definitions. But in this
> case we can face the another challenge - if somebody remove unnecessary
> plugin with some annotation types, all annotations of these types will
> be lost while they are still storing in the workspace. And I think it's
> not so dangerous to make possible edit this annotations, because user
> can edit annotation file content anyway.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
> Yuri Strot
> 
> ----- John Worrell (jworrell) <jworrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I tried another experiment with the same results... take a clean
>> install and delete the 3 annotation jars... and it still works
>>  
>> Cheers,
>>  
>> JohnW
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> From: tigerstripe-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:tigerstripe-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard
>> Craddock (rcraddoc)
>> Sent: 16 October 2008 17:52
>> To: Tigerstripe developers list
>> Subject: [tigerstripe-dev] Annotations question.
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 1. My configuration contained John's IRD Annotation definitions
> plugin.
>> 2. I created some artifacts and annotated them with John's
> annotations.
>> 3. I then removed the Annotations definition plugin from my
>> configuration, stopped and started eclipse.
>>  
>> Now - in my project, I can still see the annotations in the
>> Annotations Property Viewer. I can also edit them. I cannot add any
> new ones.
>>  
>> I did not expect to see these and  I definitely did not expect that I
>> would not be able to edit them.
>>  
>> Is this a bug, or something expected? I think it's pretty
>> counterintuitive, and possible "dangerous" in some situations (eg
>> someone who does not "own" a certain class of annotations should not
>> be able to change someone else's settings).
>>  
>> RC
>>  
>> "This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the
>> sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or
>> disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
>> intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient),
>> please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of
> this message."
>> "Cisco Systems Limited (Company Number: 02558939), is registered in
>> England and Wales with its registered office at 1 Callaghan Square,
>> Cardiff, South Glamorgan CF10 5BT"
>> 
>>  
> _______________________________________________
> tigerstripe-dev mailing list
> tigerstripe-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tigerstripe-dev
> _______________________________________________
> tigerstripe-dev mailing list
> tigerstripe-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tigerstripe-dev