Re: [tigerstripe-dev] Annotations question.

[Yuri Strot <yuri@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Eric,

Yes, I think tomorrow I'll finished with it.
I've added bug 251731, just for history.

-- 
Best regards,
Yuri Strot

----- Eric Dillon <erdillon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tigerstripe-dev mailing list
> tigerstripe-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tigerstripe-dev