|
Rich,
IMO, the 'policies' for EPP are how the EPP project
will make decisions on building the packages they are responsible for;
specifically the four they do today. If the modeling top level
project, or for that matter anyone else, created their own package, you have the
freedom to decide what you want in it.
I 'hope' that a number of groups/individuals will
create their own packages in time for Ganymede and we will create a 'cool
packages' page that contains all of the community packages. We would
link to this page from the download page. Make sense?
We?ve been
discussing a Modeling package for a while, so as suggested, I?m posting here
and to the Modeling newsgroup to move ahead with its proposal and
definition.
In accordance with the proposed policies (http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.packaging/msg00100.html),
it seems we should create a package that includes features shipping under the
?Models and Model Development? category of Europa/Ganymede (and their
dependencies). This would be:
- EMF
Runtime
- EMF
SDO
- XSD
- EMF
Data Integrity Frameworks (Query/Transaction/Validation)
- JET
- GMF
- EODM
- OCL
- UML2
- UML2 Tools
To comply
with policy 6a, which requires a 1.0 release or later, we?d need to exclude
JET, EODM, and UML2 Tools. The most concerning aspect of this is the
loss of UML2 Tools, which would mean the Modeling package would have no UML
diagramming. How firm is this requirement?
Note that we
may also add components to Ganymede before the M4 cutoff on December 14th
(e.g. M2M QVTO and M2T Xpand).
I suspect to keep with policy 3, which
requires keeping the packages as small as possible, we should not include SDK
features. Does this present a problem to anyone?
Another point to
consider are those ?modeling? features found outside of the Modeling project.
For example, STP has a BPMN diagramming feature. Should we look to
include all end user modeling/diagramming features in this
package?
Thanks,
Rich
|