Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » MDT (Model Development Tools) » Sphinx proposal
Sphinx proposal [message #602773] Fri, 05 February 2010 10:15 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 #602783 is a reply to message #602773] Tue, 09 February 2010 12:59 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 #602784 is a reply to message #602783] 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 #602790 is a reply to message #602783] Wed, 10 February 2010 07:33 Go to previous 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
Previous Topic:[SBVR] load sbvr vocabulary from .xmi file
Next Topic:[Announce] Eclipse/OMG Symposium 2010
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Nov 28 11:20:21 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03548 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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