|
| Re: Differences between SCA models [message #806087 is a reply to message #806078] |
Fri, 24 February 2012 14:35   |
|
Hi,
What do you mean by "is syntactically different"?
The EMF model for SCA is not made up of a single part. There are extensions for platforms, to extend bindings, interfaces and implementations. So, looking at the sca.ecore file exclusively is not enough. You have to look at the other extensions too.
The SCA Designer is based on the core model and the model extensions.
|
|
|
| Re: Differences between SCA models [message #806095 is a reply to message #806087] |
Fri, 24 February 2012 14:47 |
 MinhTu TonThat
Messages: 38
Registered: February 2012 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Vincent,
By "syntactically different", I mean for example, in the model created by EMF, I got
<component>
<implementationJava/>
</component>
whereas in the model of SCA Tool I got
<csa:component>
<csa:implementation.java/>
</csa:component>
I wonder why there are such differences?
Do you mean "extensions" by other meta-model references like addressing.ecore, instance.ecore...? If not, would you mind telling me where to find them and how to integrate them in the SCA meta-model?
Thank you in advance.
[Updated on: Fri, 24 February 2012 14:48] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
| Re: Differences between SCA models [message #836358 is a reply to message #809067] |
Wed, 04 April 2012 11:46 |
|
Hi,
Sorry, I completely skipped SCA Tools for some time. And I got no notification from the forum.
Can you tell me how you serialize your EMF model instance? I think you forgot to use the extended metadata in the save options.
saveOptions.put(XMLResource.OPTION_EXTENDED_META_DATA, Boolean.TRUE);
That should work.
In fact, in the ecore model, the XML element's name is defined in an extended metadata. If you do not use it, then the EMF element's name is used (implementationJava here).
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02311 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
