Eclipse Community Forums: EMF » [Announce] Mint component proposal

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » EMF » [Announce] Mint component proposal

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

[Announce] Mint component proposal [message #414091]

Wed, 24 October 2007 13:44

Peter Nehrer

Messages: 241
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

A proposal for a new component (Mint) under the EMFT project has been
posted to the wiki (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Mint). Its goal is to improve
user productivity when developing EMF-based solutions by providing tighter
integration with JDT. Please post any questions, comments and suggestions
to the eclipse.technology.emft newsgroup (prefix the subject with [Mint]).
I look forward to your participation.

--Peter

Report message to a moderator

Re: [Announce] Mint component proposal [message #414105 is a reply to message #414091]

Thu, 25 October 2007 02:31

Miles Parker

Messages: 1341
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

On 2007-10-24 06:44:53 -0700, pnehrer@ecliptical.ca (Peter Nehrer) said:

> A proposal for a new component (Mint) under the EMFT project has been
> posted to the wiki (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Mint). Its goal is to
> improve user productivity when developing EMF-based solutions by
> providing tighter integration with JDT. Please post any questions,
> comments and suggestions to the eclipse.technology.emft newsgroup
> (prefix the subject with [Mint]). I look forward to your participation.
>
> --Peter

Hi Peter,

I have used the Eclipitical JDT / EMF tools and really enjoyed using
them and would love to see them blessed as part of the regular build. I
should say that I eneded up needing to remove them as part of an effort
to radically simplify my install to try to get a handle on dependency
issues -- I don't think it was any issue with the potential Mint stuff
per se -- perhaps a random Eclipse thing or perhaps from some
dependencies that it introduced - WST? Anyway having it part of EMFT
would be really helpful in terms of these kinds of overall Eclipsy tool
integration issues. What would be the best way to support the effort at
this point?

Miles

Report message to a moderator

Re: [Announce] Mint component proposal [message #414143 is a reply to message #414105]

Thu, 25 October 2007 19:51

Peter Nehrer

Messages: 241
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Hi Miles,

thank you for your support. Having this component as part of EMFT would
certainly provide the necessary transparency in terms of roadmap/feature
planning, dependencies, bugs, IP, etc. Initially, I'm hoping to keep this
project fairly light-weight -- basically taking advantage of existing
integration opportunities with JDT. One can look at typical EMF-based
development as modeling activities followed by integration with other
application code (repeated as necessary). There is a good deal of support
for both modeling and Java development separately, but the integration
part still requires a lot of effort (at least in my experience). Often a
relatively simple enhancement to existing tools can improve things
significantly.

I think the best place to start would be to get a discussion going about
the planned (and unplanned) features. I'd love to hear other people's
ideas and experiences on the subject. This is a diverse community and
sometimes people focusing on one area (like modeling) may not be aware of
what's possible in another area (like JDT). On the other hand, people who
work on JDT (and other tools) face a different set of challenges than
those who develop model-driven business applications (for instance).

--Peter

Report message to a moderator

Re: [Announce] Mint component proposal [message #414289 is a reply to message #414143]

Mon, 29 October 2007 18:32

Miles Parker

Messages: 1341
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

On 2007-10-25 12:51:24 -0700, pnehrer@ecliptical.ca (Peter Nehrer) said:

> integration opportunities with JDT. One can look at typical EMF-based
> development as modeling activities followed by integration with other
> application code (repeated as necessary). There is a good deal of
> support for both modeling and Java development separately, but the
> integration part still requires a lot of effort (at least in my
> experience).

No argument, see my other recent post. :)

> Often a relatively simple enhancement to existing tools can improve
> things significantly.

Yes, and the thing is that really the stuff you have already done would
be of great utility, especially as part of the EMFT functionality set
with integrated maintenance. So my selfish inclination would be to
intialy shoot for that...or is it the case that the evaluators really
want to see a complte longer term vision before approval can happen?

Report message to a moderator

Re: [Announce] Mint component proposal [message #414291 is a reply to message #414289]

Mon, 29 October 2007 18:47

Ed Merks

Messages: 33141
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Miles,

Certainly each component needs to have a reasonably well defined scope
of what it plans to do, but in terms of evaluators and approvals, the
community does most of the evaluating and the only approvals needed are
the votes from the existing committers to add the new committers along
with their components. I generally like to give the public announcement
a week to simmer and then I call for a vote on the EMF and EMFT mailing
lists. I can't imagine anyone would vote no for this cool stuff!

Miles Parker wrote:
>
> On 2007-10-25 12:51:24 -0700, pnehrer@ecliptical.ca (Peter Nehrer) said:
>
>> integration opportunities with JDT. One can look at typical EMF-based
>> development as modeling activities followed by integration with other
>> application code (repeated as necessary). There is a good deal of
>> support for both modeling and Java development separately, but the
>> integration part still requires a lot of effort (at least in my
>> experience).
>
> No argument, see my other recent post. :)
>
>> Often a relatively simple enhancement to existing tools can improve
>> things significantly.
>
> Yes, and the thing is that really the stuff you have already done
> would be of great utility, especially as part of the EMFT
> functionality set with integrated maintenance. So my selfish
> inclination would be to intialy shoot for that...or is it the case
> that the evaluators really want to see a complte longer term vision
> before approval can happen?
>

Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/

Report message to a moderator

Re: [Announce] Mint component proposal [message #414300 is a reply to message #414291]

Mon, 29 October 2007 20:07

Miles Parker

Messages: 1341
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

<Thumbs up/>

On 2007-10-29 11:47:02 -0700, Ed Merks <merks@ca.ibm.com> said:

> Miles,
>
> Certainly each component needs to have a reasonably well defined scope
> of what it plans to do, but in terms of evaluators and approvals, the
> community does most of the evaluating and the only approvals needed are
> the votes from the existing committers to add the new committers along
> with their components. I generally like to give the public
> announcement a week to simmer and then I call for a vote on the EMF and
> EMFT mailing lists. I can't imagine anyone would vote no for this cool
> stuff!
>
>
> Miles Parker wrote:
>>
>> On 2007-10-25 12:51:24 -0700, pnehrer@ecliptical.ca (Peter Nehrer) said:
>>
>>> integration opportunities with JDT. One can look at typical EMF-based
>>> development as modeling activities followed by integration with other
>>> application code (repeated as necessary). There is a good deal of
>>> support for both modeling and Java development separately, but the
>>> integration part still requires a lot of effort (at least in my
>>> experience).
>>
>> No argument, see my other recent post. :)
>>
>>> Often a relatively simple enhancement to existing tools can improve
>>> things significantly.
>>
>> Yes, and the thing is that really the stuff you have already done would
>> be of great utility, especially as part of the EMFT functionality set
>> with integrated maintenance. So my selfish inclination would be to
>> intialy shoot for that...or is it the case that the evaluators really
>> want to see a complte longer term vision before approval can happen?

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Model Instances of a UML2 metamodel extension does not work for me [XMI coding problems]
Next Topic:	How to auto generate derived features' logic code?

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

]

Current Time: Fri Apr 26 06:28:58 GMT 2024

.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Breadcrumbs

Sign up to our Newsletter