Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » MDT (Model Development Tools) » Sphinx proposal
Sphinx proposal [message #512503] Fri, 05 February 2010 05:28 Go to next message
Steffen Stundzig is currently offline Steffen StundzigFriend
Messages: 23
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
Hi all,

in the upcoming sphinx proposal
-> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/sphinx/
I see some overlappings in Workspace Management and Eclipse Platform
Extensions with the, also new, Modeling Team Framework
-> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mtf/

Could someone from the sphinx team clarify the scope and relation to MTF?

regards
Re: Sphinx proposal [message #513231 is a reply to message #512503] Tue, 09 February 2010 08:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Stephan Eberle is currently offline Stephan EberleFriend
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2009
Member

Hi all,

> in the upcoming sphinx proposal
> -> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/sphinx/
> I see some overlappings in Workspace Management and Eclipse Platform
> Extensions with the, also new, Modeling Team Framework
> -> http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mtf/
>
> Could someone from the sphinx team clarify the scope and relation to MTF?

It looks we have missed to notice the MTF project and to relate it to
Sphinx. Sorry for that. But as we have just entered the proposal phase
there is still plenty of time to catch up!

The answer to the question wrt the overlap between the two projects
depends on the time frame.

Right now, i.e., given what will be included in the initial
contribution, I'd say the overlap is very little. The reason: both
Workspace Management and Eclipse Platform and EMF Extensions are
designed to support and manage models which are already present in the
workspace. MTF seems to be focussed on the question how different kinds
of artifacts (models, other src files, and editors) can come into the
workspace by obtaining them from different kinds of repositories (CDO,
conventional SCM, and P2).

We have however a certain level of support for comparing model instances
which each other which is based on EMF Compare. It is for now used
locally only but we plan to extend it so that it can be used for
comparing locally managed model instances with remote ones through the
Eclipse team interface. This is something which could be interesting for
MTF as well, and if so, we should see how we can set up a collaboration
here.

In the future we plan to extend Sphinx in a way that it is not only a
platform for locally operating modeling tools but for modeling tools
supporting distributed teams. At this point, the question of how to
share model and other artifacts over which kind of repository will
clearly come into picture. So, the scope to Sphinx and MTF will then
overlap much more.

But there is an important thing to notice: the scope of Sphinx does only
overlap with MTF but with many other modeling components too (e.g. EMF
Compare). This is not a problem because Sphinx is not meant to be a
replacement for all these other components. It intends to reuse them and
to integrate them in a consistent way. In other words, the scopes will
for sure overlap but implementations shouldn't.

Having said that, MTF seems to be a very interesting perspective for
Sphinx in that Sphinx could become a future consumer of MTF. If you
agree with that, I could add an corresponding item to the "Relationship
with other Eclipse Projects" section of the Sphinx project proposal. How
about that?

Stephan
Re: Sphinx proposal [message #513347 is a reply to message #513231] Tue, 09 February 2010 19:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sven Efftinge is currently offline Sven EfftingeFriend
Messages: 1771
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Stephan,

Stephan Eberle schrieb:
> But there is an important thing to notice: the scope of Sphinx does only
> overlap with MTF but with many other modeling components too (e.g. EMF
> Compare). This is not a problem because Sphinx is not meant to be a
> replacement for all these other components. It intends to reuse them and
> to integrate them in a consistent way. In other words, the scopes will
> for sure overlap but implementations shouldn't.

Do you plan, to contribute code back to the different projects?
For example, couldn't the added compare functionality be contributed to
EMFCompare?

Cheers,
Sven

--
Need professional support for Xtext and EMF?
Go to: http://xtext.itemis.com
Twitter : @svenefftinge
Blog : blog.efftinge.de


--
Need professional support on Xtext or Xtend?
Mail to: xtext (at) itemis.com
Twitter : @svenefftinge
Blog : blog.efftinge.de
Re: Sphinx proposal [message #513424 is a reply to message #513231] Wed, 10 February 2010 07:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steffen Stundzig is currently offline Steffen StundzigFriend
Messages: 23
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
hi stephan,

Am 09.02.10 13:59, schrieb Stephan Eberle:
> Hi all,
>
> Having said that, MTF seems to be a very interesting perspective for
> Sphinx in that Sphinx could become a future consumer of MTF. If you
> agree with that, I could add an corresponding item to the "Relationship
> with other Eclipse Projects" section of the Sphinx project proposal. How
> about that?

thanks for the clarification. And I would be delighted to see Sphinx in
relation to MTF in your proposal.

regards
Re: Sphinx proposal [message #513905 is a reply to message #513347] Thu, 11 February 2010 16:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Stephan Eberle is currently offline Stephan EberleFriend
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2009
Member

Hi Sven,

>> But there is an important thing to notice: the scope of Sphinx does
>> only overlap with MTF but with many other modeling components too
>> (e.g. EMF Compare). This is not a problem because Sphinx is not meant
>> to be a replacement for all these other components. It intends to
>> reuse them and to integrate them in a consistent way. In other words,
>> the scopes will for sure overlap but implementations shouldn't.
>
> Do you plan, to contribute code back to the different projects?
> For example, couldn't the added compare functionality be contributed to
> EMFCompare?

Sure, this is perfectly the case. When is happens that we end up with
additional features in Sphinx which would have a better home in one of
the underlying modeling components then we are happy to contribute them
right there and to remove them from the Sphinx codebase.

In the concrete case of EMF Compare this has already become a practice.
The following is a list of bugs filed to EMF Compare resulting from
issues which we encountered while we were integrating EMF Compare in
Artop (most of them have been resolved meanwhile, some of them are still
open):

#297305
#297463
#296905
#298400
#296701
#295883
#298403
#298405
#298406

Cheers,

Stephan
Re: Sphinx proposal [message #513912 is a reply to message #513424] Thu, 11 February 2010 16:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Stephan Eberle is currently offline Stephan EberleFriend
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2009
Member

Hi Steffen,

> thanks for the clarification. And I would be delighted to see Sphinx in
> relation to MTF in your proposal.

Great! So, I'll come up with a proposal for that in the coming days.
I'll submit it to you first so that you can have a look before it goes
public.

Stephan
Re: Sphinx proposal [message #528114 is a reply to message #513912] Mon, 19 April 2010 11:54 Go to previous message
Stephan Eberle is currently offline Stephan EberleFriend
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2009
Member

Hi Steffen,

this is just for letting you know that there is meanwhile a new version
of the Sphinx project proposal
(http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/sphinx/) in which we have clarified
the relationship to MTF. It's not very detailed - we basically have just
stated that we want to use MTF for realizing the "Model repository and
database persistence support" in Sphinx (see "Future components"
section) and added MTF to our "Relationship with other Eclipse Projects"
section.

HTH anyway and sorry for not having you told that earlier.

Cheers,

Stephan
Re: Sphinx proposal [message #602803 is a reply to message #513347] Thu, 11 February 2010 16:06 Go to previous message
Stephan Eberle is currently offline Stephan EberleFriend
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2009
Member

Hi Sven,

>> But there is an important thing to notice: the scope of Sphinx does
>> only overlap with MTF but with many other modeling components too
>> (e.g. EMF Compare). This is not a problem because Sphinx is not meant
>> to be a replacement for all these other components. It intends to
>> reuse them and to integrate them in a consistent way. In other words,
>> the scopes will for sure overlap but implementations shouldn't.
>
> Do you plan, to contribute code back to the different projects?
> For example, couldn't the added compare functionality be contributed to
> EMFCompare?

Sure, this is perfectly the case. When is happens that we end up with
additional features in Sphinx which would have a better home in one of
the underlying modeling components then we are happy to contribute them
right there and to remove them from the Sphinx codebase.

In the concrete case of EMF Compare this has already become a practice.
The following is a list of bugs filed to EMF Compare resulting from
issues which we encountered while we were integrating EMF Compare in
Artop (most of them have been resolved meanwhile, some of them are still
open):

#297305
#297463
#296905
#298400
#296701
#295883
#298403
#298405
#298406

Cheers,

Stephan
Re: Sphinx proposal [message #602810 is a reply to message #513424] Thu, 11 February 2010 16:10 Go to previous message
Stephan Eberle is currently offline Stephan EberleFriend
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2009
Member

Hi Steffen,

> thanks for the clarification. And I would be delighted to see Sphinx in
> relation to MTF in your proposal.

Great! So, I'll come up with a proposal for that in the coming days.
I'll submit it to you first so that you can have a look before it goes
public.

Stephan
Re: Sphinx proposal [message #602861 is a reply to message #513912] Mon, 19 April 2010 11:54 Go to previous message
Stephan Eberle is currently offline Stephan EberleFriend
Messages: 35
Registered: July 2009
Member

Hi Steffen,

this is just for letting you know that there is meanwhile a new version
of the Sphinx project proposal
(http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/sphinx/) in which we have clarified
the relationship to MTF. It's not very detailed - we basically have just
stated that we want to use MTF for realizing the "Model repository and
database persistence support" in Sphinx (see "Future components"
section) and added MTF to our "Relationship with other Eclipse Projects"
section.

HTH anyway and sorry for not having you told that earlier.

Cheers,

Stephan
Previous Topic:[Announce] MoDELS 2010 Call for Papers
Next Topic:Re: BPMN2 support
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Nov 24 20:27:22 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.06947 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software