RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Europa and EMF 3.0

[Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ed,

Yes.  Certainly there isn't anything
5.0 specific that we'd need in the tools in order to generate 5.0 specific
code.  We just need a 5.0 specific runtime to support the 5.0 specific
code.


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)

"Ed Burnette" <Ed.Burnette@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

10/08/2006 05:17 PM

Please respond to
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"Cross project issues" <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Europa and EMF 3.0

Would it be technically possible
to have EMF 3 run on 1.4 VM's yet generate code that targets both 1.4 and
5.0 VM's?

---

From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed
Merks
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 8:29 AM
To: Cross project issues; emf-dev
Subject: RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Europa and EMF 3.0


Jeff, 

Yes, we do intend to generate 2.2 compatible code.
Such a feature would continue as long as it's required by clients, which
is probably forever. 
I don't know all the draw backs yet.  I suppose it's a little more
complex to set the target platform rather than directly use the running
platform.  That's probably it though. 
We will not necessarily be able to invest significant development work
in a 2.2+ stream of changes, so at best and if necessary it will be like
a maintenance stream.  We may need to look to the community to help
address any additional requirements on that stream beyond the bare minimum
that the existing team's resource can contain. 

These types of notes, and of course our public plans, are my effort to
bring the community along.  This was also a topic of discussion at
the Architecture meeting in Chicago.   I just don't want to be put
in the position of having to advocate the virtues of Java 5.0 itself as
a motivator for moving forward because I'm likely to end up pointing out
some of my own concerns about why the language was changed in such dramatically
complex way.  But most of our respective organizations voted in favor
of this drastic change although I'm not sure that was ever well socialized.
 Our primary reason for moving forward is that the language has moved
forward and there are a growing set of clients who want to move forward
along with it.  Without us doing our part, there will be no forward
movement for anyone.   I don't think it's so clear that folks are
losing anything more than we all lost when the JDKs stopped going to 1.4.x
and went to 5.0 instead.  Perhaps one example is the use of EMF by
Apache's Tuscany project which expects to be able to generate 5.0-based
SDO APIs.   It will be another year before EMF is available as a release
which means it will probably be almost two years before this shows up in
commercial products; it seems not a stretch of the imagination to suppose
that two years from now, commercial products will have a large client base
expecting and even demanding rich support for Java 5.0.
  

Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev