Home » Modeling » EMF » Two editors sharing the model and or edit plugins
|
| Re: Two editors sharing the model and or edit plugins [message #415646 is a reply to message #415642] |
Sun, 23 December 2007 20:00   |
 Ed Merks
Messages: 33140
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090600030802070004040404
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Philipp,
Comments below.
Philipp W. Kutter wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'd like to generate various editors for the same domain model.
How would they differ?
>
> They should be able to share the generated model plugin, and maybe as
> well to share the generated edit plugin.
>
It seems likely they should share pretty much everything. I.e., it
might be best to derive them from a common generated base...
>
> In principle I can achieve this with a genmodel per editor. If the
> options for the model sections are the same, they will generate the same
> code, and I only need to keep this sections in synch, ...
I don't understand why you'd want copies of the code...
>
> BUT this would only work if I could define the plugin-ids for edit and
> editor plugins on my own. This would need
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=163597
> to be implemented.
>
> Any chance to get this implemented fast?
I just did 210405
<https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=210405>. But I don't
think you're paying me enough. :-P Donate to Eclipse
<http://www.eclipse.org/donate/index.php>
>
> Even cooler would of course be, if two .genmodel files could share
> the model and/or edit sections. This would be possible by simply adding
> a reference (in addition to the exisiting containment) to these sections.
It's not entirely clear the value of multiple generated editors since so
few options affect their generation.
>
>
> Or does anyone have different ideas? Since the generator does not
> change the plugin id's after generation, I could change them by hand.
It seems best to have a common generated base...
>
> Best, Philipp
--------------090600030802070004040404
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Philipp,<br>
<br>
Comments below.<br>
<br>
Philipp W. Kutter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:fkma8q$e3n$1@build.eclipse.org" type="cite">Hi.
<br>
<br>
I'd like to generate various editors for the same domain model.
<br>
</blockquote>
How would they differ?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:fkma8q$e3n$1@build.eclipse.org" type="cite"><br>
They should be able to share the generated model plugin, and maybe as
well to share the generated edit plugin.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
It seems likely they should share pretty much everything. I.e., it
might be best to derive them from a common generated base...<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:fkma8q$e3n$1@build.eclipse.org" type="cite"><br>
In principle I can achieve this with a genmodel per editor. If the
<br>
options for the model sections are the same, they will generate the
same
<br>
code, and I only need to keep this sections in synch, ...
<br>
</blockquote>
I don't understand why you'd want copies of the code...<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:fkma8q$e3n$1@build.eclipse.org" type="cite"><br>
BUT this would only work if I could define the plugin-ids for edit and
editor plugins on my own. This would need
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=163597">https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=163597</a>
<br>
to be implemented.
<br>
<br>
Any chance to get this implemented fast?
<br>
</blockquote>
I just did <a name="b210405"
href="https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=210405">210405</a>.
But I don't think you're paying me enough. :-P <a
href="http://www.eclipse.org/donate/index.php">Donate to Eclipse</a>
<blockquote cite="mid:fkma8q$e3n$1@build.eclipse.org" type="cite"><br>
Even cooler would of course be, if two .genmodel files could share
<br>
the model and/or edit sections. This would be possible by simply adding
<br>
a reference (in addition to the exisiting containment) to these
sections.
<br>
</blockquote>
It's not entirely clear the value of multiple generated editors since
so few options affect their generation.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:fkma8q$e3n$1@build.eclipse.org" type="cite"><br>
<br>
Or does anyone have different ideas? Since the generator does not
change the plugin id's after generation, I could change them by hand.
<br>
</blockquote>
It seems best to have a common generated base...<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:fkma8q$e3n$1@build.eclipse.org" type="cite"><br>
Best, Philipp
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------090600030802070004040404--
Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Two editors sharing the model and or edit plugins [message #415656 is a reply to message #415646] |
Wed, 26 December 2007 10:04 |
Philipp Kutter
Messages: 306
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi, Ed.
>> I'd like to generate various editors for the same domain model.
> How would they differ?
Most of the time, there will be two kinds of editors: one for the
technical user, that uses the generated editors as a support in
high level debugging while fixing operational problems, and testing
new developments. For this one, I will not do any hand coding.
The second one is for the end user: in this one, a lot of tuning is
done, properties are not shown, labels are made more readable,
e.t.c.
In the current case however, there are three distinct user groups.
Each of them is only allowed to see some part of the model, and to edit
some other parts of the model. Up to now we generate all from the
models, and I'd like to continue doing this.
>> They should be able to share the generated model plugin, and maybe as
>> well to share the generated edit plugin.
>>
> It seems likely they should share pretty much everything. I.e., it
> might be best to derive them from a common generated base...
I agree, as much as possible. But if I can choose between sharing of
..edit code and doing things on the code level, and having just two
different .genmodel files, I think having just two different .genmodels
and some duplicate generated code would be better.
>> In principle I can achieve this with a genmodel per editor. If the
>> options for the model sections are the same, they will generate the same
>> code, and I only need to keep this sections in synch, ...
> I don't understand why you'd want copies of the code...
>>
>> BUT this would only work if I could define the plugin-ids for edit and
>> editor plugins on my own. This would need
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=163597
>> to be implemented.
>>
>> Any chance to get this implemented fast?
> I just did 210405
> <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=210405>. But I don't
> think you're paying me enough. :-P Donate to Eclipse
I'd love to be able to generate technical review work for you. We
however move away from technical topics to pure business modeling.
All I can do there is find budget to invest my own and my developers
time to contribute to the newsgroup and to contribute code.
And to communicate my strange ideas what EMF should be able to do..
All the best from Switzerland,
Philipp
> <http://www.eclipse.org/donate/index.php>
>>
>> Even cooler would of course be, if two .genmodel files could share
>> the model and/or edit sections. This would be possible by simply adding
>> a reference (in addition to the exisiting containment) to these sections.
> It's not entirely clear the value of multiple generated editors since so
> few options affect their generation.
>>
>>
>> Or does anyone have different ideas? Since the generator does not
>> change the plugin id's after generation, I could change them by hand.
> It seems best to have a common generated base...
>>
>> Best, Philipp
>
|
|
|
| Re: Two editors sharing the model and or edit plugins [message #415658 is a reply to message #415656] |
Wed, 26 December 2007 11:38 |
Ed Merks
Messages: 33140
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Philipp,
Comments below.
Philipp W. Kutter wrote:
> Hi, Ed.
>>> I'd like to generate various editors for the same domain model.
>> How would they differ?
>
> Most of the time, there will be two kinds of editors: one for the
> technical user, that uses the generated editors as a support in
> high level debugging while fixing operational problems, and testing
> new developments. For this one, I will not do any hand coding.
>
> The second one is for the end user: in this one, a lot of tuning is
> done, properties are not shown, labels are made more readable,
> e.t.c.
>
>
> In the current case however, there are three distinct user groups.
> Each of them is only allowed to see some part of the model, and to edit
> some other parts of the model. Up to now we generate all from the
> models, and I'd like to continue doing this.
I still get the sense that a single dynamically configurable editor, a
ones derived from a common base, would be easier to maintain....
>
>>> They should be able to share the generated model plugin, and maybe
>>> as well to share the generated edit plugin.
>>>
>> It seems likely they should share pretty much everything. I.e., it
>> might be best to derive them from a common generated base...
>
> I agree, as much as possible. But if I can choose between sharing of
> ..edit code and doing things on the code level, and having just two
> different .genmodel files, I think having just two different .genmodels
> and some duplicate generated code would be better.
I wonder why though, but hey, that's none of my business.
>
>>> In principle I can achieve this with a genmodel per editor. If the
>>> options for the model sections are the same, they will generate the
>>> same
>>> code, and I only need to keep this sections in synch, ...
>> I don't understand why you'd want copies of the code...
>>>
>>> BUT this would only work if I could define the plugin-ids for edit
>>> and editor plugins on my own. This would need
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=163597
>>> to be implemented.
>>>
>>> Any chance to get this implemented fast?
>> I just did 210405
>> <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=210405>. But I don't
>> think you're paying me enough. :-P Donate to Eclipse
>
> I'd love to be able to generate technical review work for you. We
> however move away from technical topics to pure business modeling.
> All I can do there is find budget to invest my own and my developers
> time to contribute to the newsgroup and to contribute code.
>
> And to communicate my strange ideas what EMF should be able to do..
Well, the editor plugin ID thing is done, so duplicating the GenModel
and using it to generate duplicate editors is a bit easier now. I even
made it possible to specify additional plugin dependencies for the
editor (and other projects) via the GenModel...
>
> All the best from Switzerland,
> Philipp
>
>
>> <http://www.eclipse.org/donate/index.php>
>>>
>>> Even cooler would of course be, if two .genmodel files could share
>>> the model and/or edit sections. This would be possible by simply adding
>>> a reference (in addition to the exisiting containment) to these
>>> sections.
>> It's not entirely clear the value of multiple generated editors since
>> so few options affect their generation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or does anyone have different ideas? Since the generator does not
>>> change the plugin id's after generation, I could change them by hand.
>> It seems best to have a common generated base...
>>>
>>> Best, Philipp
>>
Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
|
|
|
| Re: Two editors sharing the model and or edit plugins [message #415660 is a reply to message #415658] |
Wed, 26 December 2007 13:39 |
Philipp Kutter
Messages: 306
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi, Ed.
Thanks a lot for the new features! Great XMas present.
>> In the current case however, there are three distinct user groups.
>> Each of them is only allowed to see some part of the model, and to edit
>> some other parts of the model. Up to now we generate all from the
>> models, and I'd like to continue doing this.
> I still get the sense that a single dynamically configurable editor, a
> ones derived from a common base, would be easier to maintain....
>>
>>>> They should be able to share the generated model plugin, and maybe
>>>> as well to share the generated edit plugin.
>>>>
>>> It seems likely they should share pretty much everything. I.e., it
>>> might be best to derive them from a common generated base...
>>
>> I agree, as much as possible. But if I can choose between sharing of
>> ..edit code and doing things on the code level, and having just two
>> different .genmodel files, I think having just two different .genmodels
>> and some duplicate generated code would be better.
> I wonder why though, but hey, that's none of my business.
Because we do not need to touch the code level. We want to work with
teams where only one of 5 persons has Java coding capabilities, the
others do plain EMF+OCL
Thus, its about having everybody productive. For you, and maybe me,
adapting the code may be easier, but not for our teams.
In addition I can much easier find a programmer who helps fine tuning
a generated .edit project, then having a programmer that keeps custom
made templates, doing the reuse of code. The first resouce is cheaper,
and easier to replace.
> Well, the editor plugin ID thing is done, so duplicating the GenModel
> and using it to generate duplicate editors is a bit easier now. I even
> made it possible to specify additional plugin dependencies for the
> editor (and other projects) via the GenModel...
Great. We will experiment with this and test it.
Best, Philipp
>>
>> All the best from Switzerland,
>> Philipp
>>
>>
>>> <http://www.eclipse.org/donate/index.php>
>>>>
>>>> Even cooler would of course be, if two .genmodel files could share
>>>> the model and/or edit sections. This would be possible by simply adding
>>>> a reference (in addition to the exisiting containment) to these
>>>> sections.
>>> It's not entirely clear the value of multiple generated editors since
>>> so few options affect their generation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or does anyone have different ideas? Since the generator does not
>>>> change the plugin id's after generation, I could change them by hand.
>>> It seems best to have a common generated base...
>>>>
>>>> Best, Philipp
>>>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Apr 25 12:29:37 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03174 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
