|Re: Erm, no EMF or GMF integration? [message #1459 is a reply to message #1440]
||Wed, 31 August 2005 08:58
Originally posted by: fabrice.dewasmes.openwide.fr|
Sean Woodhouse wrote:
> Hi guys,
> Just read the proposal and noticed a distinct lack of any mention of EMF or
> GMF. At a minimum I think you'd have to base the model on EMF, or ideally
> use GMF to create your workflow modelling tool (when GMF materializes).
We didn't notice the possible use of GMF for the project at the time we
began writing the proposal. The very basic idea was to take advantage of
existing code base in ObjectWeb projects. As JaWE has kindly proposed to
give us a copy right of their model layer we have decided to keep things
simple at first and integrate part of their code.
GMF seems a pretty good idea and may speed up development time. We'll
have to look in detail how this can fit in the big picture.
> also noticed that there's a BPEL designer project firing up and it concerns
> me that there seems to be a lot of overlap. Both projects would probably be
> best served by becoming subprojects of GMF (as Domain Specific Language
> implementations). Also, there seems to be a lot of potential overlap between
> the concept of the Workflow engine Administration/Monitoring tool and both
> TPTP and WTP. Any thoughts on how you might leverage those two projects?
I completely agree with you. That's why we've posted something on their
newsgroup asking how we could collaborate but we had unfortunately no
reply. I'll try to send something again today or so.
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.01490 seconds