Skip to main content


Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » Papyrus » Papyrus and Amalgam
Papyrus and Amalgam [message #595015] Sat, 21 November 2009 15:50 Go to next message
Ioan Salau is currently offline Ioan SalauFriend
Messages: 69
Registered: July 2009
Location: Toronto
Member

I attended Papyrus presentation session at Eclipse Modeling Day in Toronto and I noticed that Papyrus scope somehow overlaps with Amalgam scope. I have been told that Amalgam project may have some difficulties as the lead of the projects stepped down.
Anyway, I really liked the idea of Amalgam to focus on DSL Toolkit and provide an integrated framework to build and use DSLs not necessary based on UML with Profiles but using GMF/XText/Acceleo/M2M. On the other hand, Papyrus plan is to focus more on UML with Profiles.
Is there any plan for Papyrus to eventually take over the Amalgam idea to build a framework similar with Amalgam/DSL Toolkit?

Thanks,

Ioan
Re: Papyrus and Amalgam [message #595026 is a reply to message #595015] Mon, 23 November 2009 09:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Vlad Varnica is currently offline Vlad VarnicaFriend
Messages: 546
Registered: July 2009
Location: Milton Keynes - UK
Senior Member
I don't know about this Eclipse project technological orientation but it seems to me that targeting UML profiles and not DSL is the right choice.

Don't forget that Microsoft has just stopped its Oslo project which has been merged with SQL teams and no more large investment are planned into this DSL modeling approach.

Omondo is also totally opposed to DSL because it is a major draw back on the adoption of a common and powerful metamodel (e.g. EclipseUML2). Generating specific DSL serialization with EMF makes it impossible to reuse this model. UML is a common language for the entire community, and adding profiles with stereotype make the model even more accurate for specific industries without loosing interoperability.

The next step would be to change the graphical presentation depending on stereotypes or profiles and not to change the entire underlying metamodel !!

Vlad,
Omondo
Re: Papyrus and Amalgam [message #595044 is a reply to message #595015] Mon, 23 November 2009 11:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Raphael Faudou is currently offline Raphael FaudouFriend
Messages: 105
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Ioan,

it is in the scope of MDT Papyrus to support both profile-base and
DSL-based editors.
regards
raphaël

Ioan a écrit :
> I attended Papyrus presentation session at Eclipse Modeling Day in
> Toronto and I noticed that Papyrus scope somehow overlaps with Amalgam
> scope. I have been told that Amalgam project may have some difficulties
> as the lead of the projects stepped down. Anyway, I really liked the
> idea of Amalgam to focus on DSL Toolkit and provide an integrated
> framework to build and use DSLs not necessary based on UML with Profiles
> but using GMF/XText/Acceleo/M2M. On the other hand, Papyrus plan is to
> focus more on UML with Profiles. Is there any plan for Papyrus to
> eventually take over the Amalgam idea to build a framework similar with
> Amalgam/DSL Toolkit?
> Thanks,
>
> Ioan
Re: Papyrus and Amalgam [message #595048 is a reply to message #595026] Mon, 23 November 2009 11:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ed Merks is currently offline Ed MerksFriend
Messages: 31346
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Vlad,

Comments below.

Vlad Varnica wrote:
> I don't know about this Eclipse project technological orientation but
> it seems to me that targeting UML profiles and not DSL is the right
> choice.
Yes, yes, anything that isn't directly and exclusively using UML is
bad. We know your view on this.
>
> Don't forget that Microsoft has just stopped its Oslo project which
> has been merged with SQL teams and no more large investment are
> planned into this DSL modeling approach.
I'm sure the Olso folks are disappointed.
> Omondo is also totally opposed to DSL because it is a major draw back
> on the adoption of a common and powerful metamodel (e.g. EclipseUML2).
And that's a problem why?
> Generating specific DSL serialization with EMF makes it impossible to
> reuse this model.
That's complete rubbish. The OMG defines MOF and XMI serialization
based on MOF models. That's how UML itself is defined...
> UML is a common language for the entire community,
So is MOF.
> and adding profiles with stereotype make the model even more accurate
> for specific industries without loosing interoperability.
As we found out at the modeling days, the use of the UML APIs is
extremely complicated and gets in the way of writing clear templates.
Needing to pull profile information is even worse.
>
> The next step would be to change the graphical presentation depending
> on stereotypes or profiles and not to change the entire underlying
> metamodel !!
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's unlikely to sway
anyone. In any case, we're talking here about providing a reusable
technology layer that would be specialized by Papyrus to support UML but
could also be specialized to support Ecore, XSD, BPMN and any number of
those horrible non-UML.
>
> Vlad,
> Omondo


Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
Re: Papyrus and Amalgam [message #595080 is a reply to message #595026] Mon, 23 November 2009 16:31 Go to previous message
Ioan Salau is currently offline Ioan SalauFriend
Messages: 69
Registered: July 2009
Location: Toronto
Member

Vlad Varnica wrote on Mon, 23 November 2009 04:29
> I don't know about this Eclipse project technological orientation but it seems to me that targeting UML profiles and not DSL is the right choice.
>
> Don't forget that Microsoft has just stopped its Oslo project which has been merged with SQL teams and no more large investment are planned into this DSL modeling approach.
>
> Omondo is also totally opposed to DSL because it is a major draw back on the adoption of a common and powerful metamodel (e.g. EclipseUML2). Generating specific DSL serialization with EMF makes it impossible to reuse this model. UML is a common language for the entire community, and adding profiles with stereotype make the model even more accurate for specific industries without loosing interoperability.
>
> The next step would be to change the graphical presentation depending on stereotypes or profiles and not to change the entire underlying metamodel !!
>
> Vlad,
> Omondo


Hi Vlad,
Although I do see your point allow me to disagree with you. UML2 and DSL are totally opposite as scope, yet each one provides usefull tools to achieve your scope. In my vision of MDSD Workbench, UML2 is only yet another graphical concrete syntax for my abstract syntax domain model, while the DSL can provide alternative concrete syntaxes (textual or graphical). Depending on who is your target market, different concrete syntax may be the best way to simplify the process. I have hard time to imagine how can you model efficiently complex expressions with UML2, but I can see how easy is to model a sequence flow or class diagram.
Also, I do not understand how using EMF will somehow limit your interoperability. That's why you have QVT M2M, any time you can translate between EMF model to UML2 or even to other models invented or not invented yet. The most important thing is to capture information in a formal way, rather then get stuck into the flavours of metamodling. EMF migth not be perfect for everything, but so far it helped me a lot and I think is a great project with a huge support from open source and commercial community.
In the end, is not you who can decide what is the best for my project, is not even me or Ed Merks, but the end customer of my project.

Regards,

Ioan
Previous Topic:[Announce] Eclipse/OMG Symposium 2010
Next Topic:Papyrus and Amalgam
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Aug 04 18:41:36 GMT 2020

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01425 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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

Back to the top