|
| Re: Lightweight Extensions <--> non dynamic ecore ? [message #471012 is a reply to message #471009] |
Wed, 30 May 2007 20:23  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: cdamus.ca.ibm.com
Hi, Stefan,
Since UML2 2.1 M7/RC0, you can now statically define your profiles. That
means, that you can generate an EPackage implementation (Ecore model, Java
code, etc.) corresponding to your profile, and then feed that into GMF.
There is no dynamic EMF involved.
The procedure is much like generating code for any other kind of UML
Package: create a GenModel, importing the model from UML instead of from
Ecore.
For more questions about static profiles, follow up with the
eclipse.modeling.mdt.uml2 newsgroup.
HTH,
Christian
SKuhn wrote:
> hi folks,
>
> User:
> first of all I'm not really into UML2 profiles ;)
>
> Story:
> What I want to do is creating a DSL Editor with GMF which reads/writes
> UML2 conform XMI-'code'. We've sketched a DSL based on UML2 so I guess I
> have to define a profile. "easy" so far.
>
> Problems:
> My concern is how I get the profile in an ecore representation needed
> for GMF. In "Applying UML Profile for Domain Metamodel" by Yves Yang it
> is described how to get one for HeavyWeight extensions (still have to
> check if this works).
>
> What confueses me is in the presentation "What do YOU want UML to be?"
> at EclipseCon2k7 it is mentioned that the stereotypes of Lightweight
> Extensions (which I guess is all I need) are stored as dynamic EMF
> objects (p.54). Now afaik the GMF framework doesn't handle these dynamic
> objects (the GMF runtime does).
>
> Questions:
> So I have to use Heavyweight Extensions? Can I always open the models
> made with my DSL-Editor in UML Tools and vice versa?
> For which profiling techniques mentioned in "Customizing UML: Which
> technique is right for you?" does this applies?
>
> What are the biggest stumbling blocks I have to take care of using
> uml-profiles and GMF?
>
> (Is it a good idea to forget about the UML Tools and simply extend some
> classes of the UML2.ecore? What are the benefits of going the UML way?)
>
> Off Topic Question:
> I posted this question in eclipse.modeling.mdt.uml2tools /
> eclipse.modeling.gmf because I guess it concerns all 2. Is there
> something wrong with this way?
>
> -stefan
>
> Answers:
|
|
|
| Re: Lightweight Extensions <--> non dynamic ecore ? [message #597071 is a reply to message #471009] |
Wed, 30 May 2007 20:23 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: cdamus.ca.ibm.com
Hi, Stefan,
Since UML2 2.1 M7/RC0, you can now statically define your profiles. That
means, that you can generate an EPackage implementation (Ecore model, Java
code, etc.) corresponding to your profile, and then feed that into GMF.
There is no dynamic EMF involved.
The procedure is much like generating code for any other kind of UML
Package: create a GenModel, importing the model from UML instead of from
Ecore.
For more questions about static profiles, follow up with the
eclipse.modeling.mdt.uml2 newsgroup.
HTH,
Christian
SKuhn wrote:
> hi folks,
>
> User:
> first of all I'm not really into UML2 profiles ;)
>
> Story:
> What I want to do is creating a DSL Editor with GMF which reads/writes
> UML2 conform XMI-'code'. We've sketched a DSL based on UML2 so I guess I
> have to define a profile. "easy" so far.
>
> Problems:
> My concern is how I get the profile in an ecore representation needed
> for GMF. In "Applying UML Profile for Domain Metamodel" by Yves Yang it
> is described how to get one for HeavyWeight extensions (still have to
> check if this works).
>
> What confueses me is in the presentation "What do YOU want UML to be?"
> at EclipseCon2k7 it is mentioned that the stereotypes of Lightweight
> Extensions (which I guess is all I need) are stored as dynamic EMF
> objects (p.54). Now afaik the GMF framework doesn't handle these dynamic
> objects (the GMF runtime does).
>
> Questions:
> So I have to use Heavyweight Extensions? Can I always open the models
> made with my DSL-Editor in UML Tools and vice versa?
> For which profiling techniques mentioned in "Customizing UML: Which
> technique is right for you?" does this applies?
>
> What are the biggest stumbling blocks I have to take care of using
> uml-profiles and GMF?
>
> (Is it a good idea to forget about the UML Tools and simply extend some
> classes of the UML2.ecore? What are the benefits of going the UML way?)
>
> Off Topic Question:
> I posted this question in eclipse.modeling.mdt.uml2tools /
> eclipse.modeling.gmf because I guess it concerns all 2. Is there
> something wrong with this way?
>
> -stefan
>
> Answers:
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02996 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
