Home » Modeling » EMF "Technology" (Ecore Tools, EMFatic, etc) » Traceability?
| Traceability? [message #36154] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 04:09  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: none.unknown.com
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00ED_01C688FD.6E1E49E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The EMFT Transaction page mentions the following:
6) Eclipse Workspace - The API provides traceability between EMF =
resources and workspace resources. Multi-threaded access is coordinated =
via the Eclipse jobs API and its integration with the workspace.
It's not clear to me what kind of traceability is provided and how. Can =
somebody clarify? Thanks.
Pratik
------=_NextPart_000_00ED_01C688FD.6E1E49E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The EMFT Transaction page mentions the=20
following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>6) Eclipse Workspace - The API provides traceability between EMF =
resources=20
and workspace resources. Multi-threaded access is coordinated via the =
Eclipse=20
jobs API and its integration with the workspace.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>It's not clear to me what kind of =
traceability is=20
provided and how. Can somebody clarify? Thanks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Pratik</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00ED_01C688FD.6E1E49E0--
|
|
|
| Re: Traceability? [message #36356 is a reply to message #36154] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 12:37  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: cdamus.ca.ibm.com
Hello, Pratik,
The Jobs integration that was initially intended never materialized. If
this statement is on our home page, then it should be amended.
The traceability between workspace and EMF resources is limited, thus far,
to the WorkspaceSynchronizer class. You can use a synchronizer to help
coordinate changes to an IFile with the corresponding Resource in your EMF
model. The org.eclipse.emf.workspace.examples.library.editor example
editor demonstrates the use of the WorkspaceSynchronizer.
HTH,
Christian
Pratik Shah wrote:
> The EMFT Transaction page mentions the following:
>
> 6) Eclipse Workspace - The API provides traceability between EMF resources
> and workspace resources. Multi-threaded access is coordinated via the
> Eclipse jobs API and its integration with the workspace.
>
> It's not clear to me what kind of traceability is provided and how. Can
> somebody clarify? Thanks.
>
> Pratik
|
|
|
| Re: Traceability? [message #36409 is a reply to message #36356] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 21:24 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jcheuoua.ilog.com
Hello Christian,
A very naive and maybe stupid newbie question : can you highlight what are
the differences of the transaction 'workspace' framework with the logical
model integration effort mentioned there
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-vcm-home/docs/online/team3.2/model-integration-proposal s.html
and with ths same library exa;ple there
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-vcm-home/docs/online/team3.2/libraryExample.html
Thanks,
Joel.
"Christian W. Damus" <cdamus@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:e63stc$80r$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>
> Hello, Pratik,
>
> The Jobs integration that was initially intended never materialized. If
> this statement is on our home page, then it should be amended.
>
> The traceability between workspace and EMF resources is limited, thus far,
> to the WorkspaceSynchronizer class. You can use a synchronizer to help
> coordinate changes to an IFile with the corresponding Resource in your EMF
> model. The org.eclipse.emf.workspace.examples.library.editor example
> editor demonstrates the use of the WorkspaceSynchronizer.
>
> HTH,
>
> Christian
>
>
> Pratik Shah wrote:
>
>> The EMFT Transaction page mentions the following:
>>
>> 6) Eclipse Workspace - The API provides traceability between EMF
>> resources
>> and workspace resources. Multi-threaded access is coordinated via the
>> Eclipse jobs API and its integration with the workspace.
>>
>> It's not clear to me what kind of traceability is provided and how. Can
>> somebody clarify? Thanks.
>>
>> Pratik
>
|
|
| |
| Re: Traceability? [message #36441 is a reply to message #36427] |
Wed, 07 June 2006 17:52 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: jcheuoua.ilog.com
Hi Christian,
Thank you for the clear answer,
However at a second look, the "team" model integration effort seems a bit
more than just integrating models (like EMF based resource) into the team
environment.
Indeed the example is more about that, but it looks like the technology that
is used provides some API to integrate models smoothly with the Workbench
through the common navigator for a standardized navigator experience, team
stuff (indeed the biggest part), refactoring participation, workspace
operation retargeting/veto, and specifically API that provides sort of
"traceability" - as this is the subject of this thread - with workbench
resources, that is classes like ResourceMapping, ResourceTraversal,
ModelProvider, etc.
Do you think that these will be easily complimentary with EMFT transaction ?
Thanks.
Joel.
"Christian W. Damus" <cdamus@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:e66kq3$o59$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>
> Hi, Joel,
>
> The "workspace" component of the EMFT transaction API is more about
> integration with the Eclipse workbench at this point (in particular, the
> operation history API) than the workspace. Its concerns are unrelated to
> Eclipse's logical models.
>
> The EMF logical model example demonstrates one possible means of
> integrating
> EMF-based resources (in the Eclipse workspace sense) into the team
> environment, which task is neither helped nor hindered by the EMFT API.
>
> HTH,
>
> Christian
>
>
> Joel Cheuoua wrote:
>
>> Hello Christian,
>>
>> A very naive and maybe stupid newbie question : can you highlight what
>> are
>> the differences of the transaction 'workspace' framework with the logical
>> model integration effort mentioned there
>>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-vcm-home/docs/online/team3.2/model-integration-proposal s.html
>> and with ths same library exa;ple there
>>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-vcm-home/docs/online/team3.2/libraryExample.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joel.
>>
>
> <snip>
|
|
|
| Re: Traceability? [message #36617 is a reply to message #36441] |
Thu, 08 June 2006 16:44 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: cdamus.ca.ibm.com
Hi, Joel,
You are right, the purpose of the ResourceMapping is to provide traceability
of logical models (manipulated using EMF or otherwise) to workspace
resources, for any number of operations (not just team operations).
I am not sure that I know what you mean by "complimentary". To me, that
suggests that the EMFT transaction API would somehow relate to what the
ResourceMappings API is trying to achieve. I don't see much affinity
between these APIs, except in the integration with the operation history.
Because refactoring uses the operation history, EMFT-based editors can
sensibly manage their undo/redo menus even when refactorings of EMF models
occur.
cW
Joel Cheuoua wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Thank you for the clear answer,
> However at a second look, the "team" model integration effort seems a bit
> more than just integrating models (like EMF based resource) into the team
> environment.
> Indeed the example is more about that, but it looks like the technology
> that is used provides some API to integrate models smoothly with the
> Workbench through the common navigator for a standardized navigator
> experience, team stuff (indeed the biggest part), refactoring
> participation, workspace operation retargeting/veto, and specifically API
> that provides sort of "traceability" - as this is the subject of this
> thread - with workbench resources, that is classes like ResourceMapping,
> ResourceTraversal, ModelProvider, etc.
>
> Do you think that these will be easily complimentary with EMFT transaction
> ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joel.
>
> "Christian W. Damus" <cdamus@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:e66kq3$o59$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>
>> Hi, Joel,
>>
>> The "workspace" component of the EMFT transaction API is more about
>> integration with the Eclipse workbench at this point (in particular, the
>> operation history API) than the workspace. Its concerns are unrelated to
>> Eclipse's logical models.
>>
>> The EMF logical model example demonstrates one possible means of
>> integrating
>> EMF-based resources (in the Eclipse workspace sense) into the team
>> environment, which task is neither helped nor hindered by the EMFT API.
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> Joel Cheuoua wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Christian,
>>>
>>> A very naive and maybe stupid newbie question : can you highlight what
>>> are
>>> the differences of the transaction 'workspace' framework with the
>>> logical model integration effort mentioned there
>>>
>>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-vcm-home/docs/online/team3.2/model-integration-proposal s.html
>>> and with ths same library exa;ple there
>>>
>>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-vcm-home/docs/online/team3.2/libraryExample.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Joel.
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
|
|
|
| Re: Traceability? [message #579908 is a reply to message #36154] |
Tue, 06 June 2006 12:37 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: cdamus.ca.ibm.com
Hello, Pratik,
The Jobs integration that was initially intended never materialized. If
this statement is on our home page, then it should be amended.
The traceability between workspace and EMF resources is limited, thus far,
to the WorkspaceSynchronizer class. You can use a synchronizer to help
coordinate changes to an IFile with the corresponding Resource in your EMF
model. The org.eclipse.emf.workspace.examples.library.editor example
editor demonstrates the use of the WorkspaceSynchronizer.
HTH,
Christian
Pratik Shah wrote:
> The EMFT Transaction page mentions the following:
>
> 6) Eclipse Workspace - The API provides traceability between EMF resources
> and workspace resources. Multi-threaded access is coordinated via the
> Eclipse jobs API and its integration with the workspace.
>
> It's not clear to me what kind of traceability is provided and how. Can
> somebody clarify? Thanks.
>
> Pratik
|
|
| | |
| Re: Traceability? [message #579995 is a reply to message #36427] |
Wed, 07 June 2006 17:52 |
 Joel Cheuoua
Messages: 38
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Christian,
Thank you for the clear answer,
However at a second look, the "team" model integration effort seems a bit
more than just integrating models (like EMF based resource) into the team
environment.
Indeed the example is more about that, but it looks like the technology that
is used provides some API to integrate models smoothly with the Workbench
through the common navigator for a standardized navigator experience, team
stuff (indeed the biggest part), refactoring participation, workspace
operation retargeting/veto, and specifically API that provides sort of
"traceability" - as this is the subject of this thread - with workbench
resources, that is classes like ResourceMapping, ResourceTraversal,
ModelProvider, etc.
Do you think that these will be easily complimentary with EMFT transaction ?
Thanks.
Joel.
"Christian W. Damus" <cdamus@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:e66kq3$o59$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>
> Hi, Joel,
>
> The "workspace" component of the EMFT transaction API is more about
> integration with the Eclipse workbench at this point (in particular, the
> operation history API) than the workspace. Its concerns are unrelated to
> Eclipse's logical models.
>
> The EMF logical model example demonstrates one possible means of
> integrating
> EMF-based resources (in the Eclipse workspace sense) into the team
> environment, which task is neither helped nor hindered by the EMFT API.
>
> HTH,
>
> Christian
>
>
> Joel Cheuoua wrote:
>
>> Hello Christian,
>>
>> A very naive and maybe stupid newbie question : can you highlight what
>> are
>> the differences of the transaction 'workspace' framework with the logical
>> model integration effort mentioned there
>>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-vcm-home/docs/online/team3.2/model-integration-proposal s.html
>> and with ths same library exa;ple there
>>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-vcm-home/docs/online/team3.2/libraryExample.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joel.
>>
>
> <snip>
|
|
|
| Re: Traceability? [message #580175 is a reply to message #36441] |
Thu, 08 June 2006 16:44 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: cdamus.ca.ibm.com
Hi, Joel,
You are right, the purpose of the ResourceMapping is to provide traceability
of logical models (manipulated using EMF or otherwise) to workspace
resources, for any number of operations (not just team operations).
I am not sure that I know what you mean by "complimentary". To me, that
suggests that the EMFT transaction API would somehow relate to what the
ResourceMappings API is trying to achieve. I don't see much affinity
between these APIs, except in the integration with the operation history.
Because refactoring uses the operation history, EMFT-based editors can
sensibly manage their undo/redo menus even when refactorings of EMF models
occur.
cW
Joel Cheuoua wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Thank you for the clear answer,
> However at a second look, the "team" model integration effort seems a bit
> more than just integrating models (like EMF based resource) into the team
> environment.
> Indeed the example is more about that, but it looks like the technology
> that is used provides some API to integrate models smoothly with the
> Workbench through the common navigator for a standardized navigator
> experience, team stuff (indeed the biggest part), refactoring
> participation, workspace operation retargeting/veto, and specifically API
> that provides sort of "traceability" - as this is the subject of this
> thread - with workbench resources, that is classes like ResourceMapping,
> ResourceTraversal, ModelProvider, etc.
>
> Do you think that these will be easily complimentary with EMFT transaction
> ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joel.
>
> "Christian W. Damus" <cdamus@ca.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:e66kq3$o59$1@utils.eclipse.org...
>>
>> Hi, Joel,
>>
>> The "workspace" component of the EMFT transaction API is more about
>> integration with the Eclipse workbench at this point (in particular, the
>> operation history API) than the workspace. Its concerns are unrelated to
>> Eclipse's logical models.
>>
>> The EMF logical model example demonstrates one possible means of
>> integrating
>> EMF-based resources (in the Eclipse workspace sense) into the team
>> environment, which task is neither helped nor hindered by the EMFT API.
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>
>> Joel Cheuoua wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Christian,
>>>
>>> A very naive and maybe stupid newbie question : can you highlight what
>>> are
>>> the differences of the transaction 'workspace' framework with the
>>> logical model integration effort mentioned there
>>>
>>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-vcm-home/docs/online/team3.2/model-integration-proposal s.html
>>> and with ths same library exa;ple there
>>>
>>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/plat form-vcm-home/docs/online/team3.2/libraryExample.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Joel.
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jul 27 15:36:29 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.05450 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
