Skip to main content


Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » EMF "Technology" (Ecore Tools, EMFatic, etc)  » Workflow Engine ???
Workflow Engine ??? [message #116572] Thu, 03 April 2008 03:29 Go to next message
Bryan Hunt is currently offline Bryan HuntFriend
Messages: 366
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Is this the right place to discuss / ask questions about MWE?

Is the project active (there haven't been any builds since January)?
Is there any architectural design documentation / notes that I can look at?
What exactly does this "workflow engine" do?
The wiki seems to indicate it's for "generators" - generation of what?
I'm curious as to why the domain model is not based on EMF?
What would this project like to be when it grows up?
Is the project looking for help?

I've been experimenting with my own "workflow engine" so I'm curious as
to whether your concept of a workflow engine is the same as mine beyond
the buzzwords. Looking a bit deeper at the wiki, it appears that I
could define a WorkflowComponent that did anything (say running command
line programs like /bin/ls), and the engine would stitch the components
together and execute them in the proper order. If that's the case,
then this might be what I'm looking for.

Bryan
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #116785 is a reply to message #116572] Thu, 03 April 2008 20:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bernd Kolb is currently offline Bernd KolbFriend
Messages: 57
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi Bryan,

Yes, this is the right place, and yes the project is still active.
The workflow engine is supposed to be an integration project for EMP. It
grew out of openArchitectureWare and has been used there for a few years
now. The idea is that a user of MWE can describe a sequence of steps
which should be executed in order to process a model. (E.g. read an UML2
Model -> Validate the model -> Transform it into an Ecore Model ->
delete a directory on your hard drive -> run a generator to generate
code from that model). As you noticed, you can create your own Workflow
Components. In there you'll find two methods: One which is executed
before the engine starts to run (checkConfiguration) and another one
which is called by the engine and supposed to do the real job (invoke)
At the moment wf-components can communicate using the wf-context. It is
basically a map where a component can read data from and put data in.
The wf-engine also implements the Eclipse debug framework. Additionally
it provides you with extension points so your components can plug into
that and thus make you component debuggable (we are using that to
provide a debugger for the M2T's Xpand languages).
For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future. Also, we'd
like to have better support for static analysis. Another thing is that
we might change the language from XML to something more concise, but
this is not yet decided. (However if we do we will continue to support
the xml for a while). At the moment we are refactoring and rewriting our
Xpand contribution and thus the focus has been shifted a bit away from
MWE. However, MWE is fully usable and has used (with a different
namespace ;-)) in many projects in the past. Your help would
definitively be welcome!

From what I can see in your last sentence, this is what you have been
looking for :-). For a simple example, you might want to have a look at
the DirectoryCleaner shipped with MWE.

Whenever you have other questions, please don't hesitate to ask!

HTH,

Bernd

Bryan Hunt schrieb:
> Is this the right place to discuss / ask questions about MWE?
>
> Is the project active (there haven't been any builds since January)?
> Is there any architectural design documentation / notes that I can look at?
> What exactly does this "workflow engine" do?
> The wiki seems to indicate it's for "generators" - generation of what?
> I'm curious as to why the domain model is not based on EMF?
> What would this project like to be when it grows up?
> Is the project looking for help?
>
> I've been experimenting with my own "workflow engine" so I'm curious as
> to whether your concept of a workflow engine is the same as mine beyond
> the buzzwords. Looking a bit deeper at the wiki, it appears that I
> could define a WorkflowComponent that did anything (say running command
> line programs like /bin/ls), and the engine would stitch the components
> together and execute them in the proper order. If that's the case, then
> this might be what I'm looking for.
>
> Bryan
>
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #116809 is a reply to message #116785] Fri, 04 April 2008 03:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bryan Hunt is currently offline Bryan HuntFriend
Messages: 366
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Bernd, thanks for replying. If I were to come up with an example EMF
model, would that model have to conform to the existing code base, or
would I have the freedom to start with a fresh, simple design that
could be built upon? I've poked around a bit at the source code and my
ideas on this topic appear very similar to yours, but there are some
things in the source that I don't understand, so I'd like to start with
a simple model and go from there. I think better when I can see the
model :)

Bryan

On 2008-04-03 15:22:00 -0500, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@kolbware.de> said:

> For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
> however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future.
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #116832 is a reply to message #116809] Fri, 04 April 2008 11:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com

Bryan,

When reviewing the MWE work with Bernd, the fact that the MWE model
wasn't an EMF model struck me immediately. Shocking I'd noticed that
hey? :-P We had discussions about the fact that the engine needs to
work stand alone, which lead to further discussions about the fact that
EMF models do work stand alone.

I think a community works best when it's diverse with lots of people
contributing, so I imagine that working on a prototype EMF model that
corresponds to the hand written "model" in MWE today would be a very
useful contribution and an excellent way to get involved in the project
even as a committer.


Bryan Hunt wrote:
> Bernd, thanks for replying. If I were to come up with an example EMF
> model, would that model have to conform to the existing code base, or
> would I have the freedom to start with a fresh, simple design that
> could be built upon? I've poked around a bit at the source code and
> my ideas on this topic appear very similar to yours, but there are
> some things in the source that I don't understand, so I'd like to
> start with a simple model and go from there. I think better when I
> can see the model :)
>
> Bryan
>
> On 2008-04-03 15:22:00 -0500, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@kolbware.de> said:
>
>> For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
>> however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future.
>
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #116843 is a reply to message #116809] Fri, 04 April 2008 14:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bernd Kolb is currently offline Bernd KolbFriend
Messages: 57
Registered: July 2009
Member
Sure, you're suggestions will be welcome. I'd say that the EMF model
you'll come up with has not to be 100% compliant with the current code.
However it would be nice if it would not contradict it. One very
important thing from my point of view is I as a wf-component writer do
not have to create an ecore model or anything like that. It should stay
as simple and pure as possible. Internally however we could use Ecore
for the AST. This would also allow us to create a nice textual language
on top of that using the TMF project or a graphical editor if anyone
sees any benefit in having that.
At the moment I the meta model is relatively simple (basically a
workflow which holds properties and wf-components which again hold
properties). When designing the new meta model please keep in mind that
we want to enable some kind of static analysis. This would result in a
type for a property. (In a wf-component we e.g. could use java
annotations to specify the slots and their types used by this component)

What do you think?

Bernd



Bryan Hunt schrieb:
> Bernd, thanks for replying. If I were to come up with an example EMF
> model, would that model have to conform to the existing code base, or
> would I have the freedom to start with a fresh, simple design that could
> be built upon? I've poked around a bit at the source code and my ideas
> on this topic appear very similar to yours, but there are some things in
> the source that I don't understand, so I'd like to start with a simple
> model and go from there. I think better when I can see the model :)
>
> Bryan
>
> On 2008-04-03 15:22:00 -0500, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@kolbware.de> said:
>
>> For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
>> however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future.
>
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #116856 is a reply to message #116832] Fri, 04 April 2008 14:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bernd Kolb is currently offline Bernd KolbFriend
Messages: 57
Registered: July 2009
Member
In fact as mentioned in my other note, I think in a first step is has
not to be compatible with the current one. One thing to keep in mind
though is we have basically 3 meta classes at the moment. The benefit of
"just" replacing them with Ecore classes is not too big ;-) So when
doing that, we also want to have a clean up (meaning simplify some of
the stuff) in the code.

Bernd


Ed Merks schrieb:
> Bryan,
>
> When reviewing the MWE work with Bernd, the fact that the MWE model
> wasn't an EMF model struck me immediately. Shocking I'd noticed that
> hey? :-P We had discussions about the fact that the engine needs to
> work stand alone, which lead to further discussions about the fact that
> EMF models do work stand alone.
> I think a community works best when it's diverse with lots of people
> contributing, so I imagine that working on a prototype EMF model that
> corresponds to the hand written "model" in MWE today would be a very
> useful contribution and an excellent way to get involved in the project
> even as a committer.
>
>
> Bryan Hunt wrote:
>> Bernd, thanks for replying. If I were to come up with an example EMF
>> model, would that model have to conform to the existing code base, or
>> would I have the freedom to start with a fresh, simple design that
>> could be built upon? I've poked around a bit at the source code and
>> my ideas on this topic appear very similar to yours, but there are
>> some things in the source that I don't understand, so I'd like to
>> start with a simple model and go from there. I think better when I
>> can see the model :)
>>
>> Bryan
>>
>> On 2008-04-03 15:22:00 -0500, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@kolbware.de> said:
>>
>>> For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
>>> however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future.
>>
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #116870 is a reply to message #116856] Fri, 04 April 2008 15:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com

Bernd,

Blasphemy! A real model always has value.


Bernd Kolb wrote:
> In fact as mentioned in my other note, I think in a first step is has
> not to be compatible with the current one. One thing to keep in mind
> though is we have basically 3 meta classes at the moment. The benefit
> of "just" replacing them with Ecore classes is not too big ;-) So when
> doing that, we also want to have a clean up (meaning simplify some of
> the stuff) in the code.
>
> Bernd
>
>
> Ed Merks schrieb:
>> Bryan,
>>
>> When reviewing the MWE work with Bernd, the fact that the MWE model
>> wasn't an EMF model struck me immediately. Shocking I'd noticed that
>> hey? :-P We had discussions about the fact that the engine needs to
>> work stand alone, which lead to further discussions about the fact
>> that EMF models do work stand alone.
>> I think a community works best when it's diverse with lots of people
>> contributing, so I imagine that working on a prototype EMF model that
>> corresponds to the hand written "model" in MWE today would be a very
>> useful contribution and an excellent way to get involved in the
>> project even as a committer.
>>
>>
>> Bryan Hunt wrote:
>>> Bernd, thanks for replying. If I were to come up with an example
>>> EMF model, would that model have to conform to the existing code
>>> base, or would I have the freedom to start with a fresh, simple
>>> design that could be built upon? I've poked around a bit at the
>>> source code and my ideas on this topic appear very similar to yours,
>>> but there are some things in the source that I don't understand, so
>>> I'd like to start with a simple model and go from there. I think
>>> better when I can see the model :)
>>>
>>> Bryan
>>>
>>> On 2008-04-03 15:22:00 -0500, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@kolbware.de> said:
>>>
>>>> For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
>>>> however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future.
>>>
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #116922 is a reply to message #116843] Fri, 04 April 2008 18:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bryan Hunt is currently offline Bryan HuntFriend
Messages: 366
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I've secured proper permission to work on this on my own time. I'll
try to work up an EMF model in the next few days. That should give us
something concrete to discuss.

Bryan
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #116957 is a reply to message #116922] Sun, 06 April 2008 05:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bryan Hunt is currently offline Bryan HuntFriend
Messages: 366
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=225892

On 2008-04-04 13:53:50 -0500, Bryan Hunt <bhunt@mac.com> said:

> I've secured proper permission to work on this on my own time. I'll
> try to work up an EMF model in the next few days. That should give us
> something concrete to discuss.
>
> Bryan
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #116975 is a reply to message #116957] Sun, 06 April 2008 09:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bernd Kolb is currently offline Bernd KolbFriend
Messages: 57
Registered: July 2009
Member
Great, thx :-)

I'll be at a customer the during the next week. However I'll try to have
a look at it.

Thanks again!

Bernd



Bryan Hunt schrieb:
> See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=225892
>
> On 2008-04-04 13:53:50 -0500, Bryan Hunt <bhunt@mac.com> said:
>
>> I've secured proper permission to work on this on my own time. I'll
>> try to work up an EMF model in the next few days. That should give us
>> something concrete to discuss.
>>
>> Bryan
>
>
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #116987 is a reply to message #116870] Sun, 06 April 2008 10:00 Go to previous message
Bernd Kolb is currently offline Bernd KolbFriend
Messages: 57
Registered: July 2009
Member
Ed Merks schrieb:
> Bernd,
>
> Blasphemy! A real model always has value.
>

:-) (We have a "real" model, it was just not emf..., but as said before,
we should (and will) change that)
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #616068 is a reply to message #116572] Thu, 03 April 2008 20:22 Go to previous message
Bernd Kolb is currently offline Bernd KolbFriend
Messages: 57
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi Bryan,

Yes, this is the right place, and yes the project is still active.
The workflow engine is supposed to be an integration project for EMP. It
grew out of openArchitectureWare and has been used there for a few years
now. The idea is that a user of MWE can describe a sequence of steps
which should be executed in order to process a model. (E.g. read an UML2
Model -> Validate the model -> Transform it into an Ecore Model ->
delete a directory on your hard drive -> run a generator to generate
code from that model). As you noticed, you can create your own Workflow
Components. In there you'll find two methods: One which is executed
before the engine starts to run (checkConfiguration) and another one
which is called by the engine and supposed to do the real job (invoke)
At the moment wf-components can communicate using the wf-context. It is
basically a map where a component can read data from and put data in.
The wf-engine also implements the Eclipse debug framework. Additionally
it provides you with extension points so your components can plug into
that and thus make you component debuggable (we are using that to
provide a debugger for the M2T's Xpand languages).
For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future. Also, we'd
like to have better support for static analysis. Another thing is that
we might change the language from XML to something more concise, but
this is not yet decided. (However if we do we will continue to support
the xml for a while). At the moment we are refactoring and rewriting our
Xpand contribution and thus the focus has been shifted a bit away from
MWE. However, MWE is fully usable and has used (with a different
namespace ;-)) in many projects in the past. Your help would
definitively be welcome!

From what I can see in your last sentence, this is what you have been
looking for :-). For a simple example, you might want to have a look at
the DirectoryCleaner shipped with MWE.

Whenever you have other questions, please don't hesitate to ask!

HTH,

Bernd

Bryan Hunt schrieb:
> Is this the right place to discuss / ask questions about MWE?
>
> Is the project active (there haven't been any builds since January)?
> Is there any architectural design documentation / notes that I can look at?
> What exactly does this "workflow engine" do?
> The wiki seems to indicate it's for "generators" - generation of what?
> I'm curious as to why the domain model is not based on EMF?
> What would this project like to be when it grows up?
> Is the project looking for help?
>
> I've been experimenting with my own "workflow engine" so I'm curious as
> to whether your concept of a workflow engine is the same as mine beyond
> the buzzwords. Looking a bit deeper at the wiki, it appears that I
> could define a WorkflowComponent that did anything (say running command
> line programs like /bin/ls), and the engine would stitch the components
> together and execute them in the proper order. If that's the case, then
> this might be what I'm looking for.
>
> Bryan
>
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #616070 is a reply to message #116785] Fri, 04 April 2008 03:19 Go to previous message
Bryan Hunt is currently offline Bryan HuntFriend
Messages: 366
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Bernd, thanks for replying. If I were to come up with an example EMF
model, would that model have to conform to the existing code base, or
would I have the freedom to start with a fresh, simple design that
could be built upon? I've poked around a bit at the source code and my
ideas on this topic appear very similar to yours, but there are some
things in the source that I don't understand, so I'd like to start with
a simple model and go from there. I think better when I can see the
model :)

Bryan

On 2008-04-03 15:22:00 -0500, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@kolbware.de> said:

> For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
> however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future.
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #616072 is a reply to message #116809] Fri, 04 April 2008 11:08 Go to previous message
Ed Merks is currently offline Ed MerksFriend
Messages: 31904
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Bryan,

When reviewing the MWE work with Bernd, the fact that the MWE model
wasn't an EMF model struck me immediately. Shocking I'd noticed that
hey? :-P We had discussions about the fact that the engine needs to
work stand alone, which lead to further discussions about the fact that
EMF models do work stand alone.

I think a community works best when it's diverse with lots of people
contributing, so I imagine that working on a prototype EMF model that
corresponds to the hand written "model" in MWE today would be a very
useful contribution and an excellent way to get involved in the project
even as a committer.


Bryan Hunt wrote:
> Bernd, thanks for replying. If I were to come up with an example EMF
> model, would that model have to conform to the existing code base, or
> would I have the freedom to start with a fresh, simple design that
> could be built upon? I've poked around a bit at the source code and
> my ideas on this topic appear very similar to yours, but there are
> some things in the source that I don't understand, so I'd like to
> start with a simple model and go from there. I think better when I
> can see the model :)
>
> Bryan
>
> On 2008-04-03 15:22:00 -0500, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@kolbware.de> said:
>
>> For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
>> however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future.
>


Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #616073 is a reply to message #116809] Fri, 04 April 2008 14:14 Go to previous message
Bernd Kolb is currently offline Bernd KolbFriend
Messages: 57
Registered: July 2009
Member
Sure, you're suggestions will be welcome. I'd say that the EMF model
you'll come up with has not to be 100% compliant with the current code.
However it would be nice if it would not contradict it. One very
important thing from my point of view is I as a wf-component writer do
not have to create an ecore model or anything like that. It should stay
as simple and pure as possible. Internally however we could use Ecore
for the AST. This would also allow us to create a nice textual language
on top of that using the TMF project or a graphical editor if anyone
sees any benefit in having that.
At the moment I the meta model is relatively simple (basically a
workflow which holds properties and wf-components which again hold
properties). When designing the new meta model please keep in mind that
we want to enable some kind of static analysis. This would result in a
type for a property. (In a wf-component we e.g. could use java
annotations to specify the slots and their types used by this component)

What do you think?

Bernd



Bryan Hunt schrieb:
> Bernd, thanks for replying. If I were to come up with an example EMF
> model, would that model have to conform to the existing code base, or
> would I have the freedom to start with a fresh, simple design that could
> be built upon? I've poked around a bit at the source code and my ideas
> on this topic appear very similar to yours, but there are some things in
> the source that I don't understand, so I'd like to start with a simple
> model and go from there. I think better when I can see the model :)
>
> Bryan
>
> On 2008-04-03 15:22:00 -0500, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@kolbware.de> said:
>
>> For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
>> however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future.
>
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #616074 is a reply to message #116832] Fri, 04 April 2008 14:23 Go to previous message
Bernd Kolb is currently offline Bernd KolbFriend
Messages: 57
Registered: July 2009
Member
In fact as mentioned in my other note, I think in a first step is has
not to be compatible with the current one. One thing to keep in mind
though is we have basically 3 meta classes at the moment. The benefit of
"just" replacing them with Ecore classes is not too big ;-) So when
doing that, we also want to have a clean up (meaning simplify some of
the stuff) in the code.

Bernd


Ed Merks schrieb:
> Bryan,
>
> When reviewing the MWE work with Bernd, the fact that the MWE model
> wasn't an EMF model struck me immediately. Shocking I'd noticed that
> hey? :-P We had discussions about the fact that the engine needs to
> work stand alone, which lead to further discussions about the fact that
> EMF models do work stand alone.
> I think a community works best when it's diverse with lots of people
> contributing, so I imagine that working on a prototype EMF model that
> corresponds to the hand written "model" in MWE today would be a very
> useful contribution and an excellent way to get involved in the project
> even as a committer.
>
>
> Bryan Hunt wrote:
>> Bernd, thanks for replying. If I were to come up with an example EMF
>> model, would that model have to conform to the existing code base, or
>> would I have the freedom to start with a fresh, simple design that
>> could be built upon? I've poked around a bit at the source code and
>> my ideas on this topic appear very similar to yours, but there are
>> some things in the source that I don't understand, so I'd like to
>> start with a simple model and go from there. I think better when I
>> can see the model :)
>>
>> Bryan
>>
>> On 2008-04-03 15:22:00 -0500, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@kolbware.de> said:
>>
>>> For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
>>> however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future.
>>
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #616075 is a reply to message #116856] Fri, 04 April 2008 15:50 Go to previous message
Ed Merks is currently offline Ed MerksFriend
Messages: 31904
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Bernd,

Blasphemy! A real model always has value.


Bernd Kolb wrote:
> In fact as mentioned in my other note, I think in a first step is has
> not to be compatible with the current one. One thing to keep in mind
> though is we have basically 3 meta classes at the moment. The benefit
> of "just" replacing them with Ecore classes is not too big ;-) So when
> doing that, we also want to have a clean up (meaning simplify some of
> the stuff) in the code.
>
> Bernd
>
>
> Ed Merks schrieb:
>> Bryan,
>>
>> When reviewing the MWE work with Bernd, the fact that the MWE model
>> wasn't an EMF model struck me immediately. Shocking I'd noticed that
>> hey? :-P We had discussions about the fact that the engine needs to
>> work stand alone, which lead to further discussions about the fact
>> that EMF models do work stand alone.
>> I think a community works best when it's diverse with lots of people
>> contributing, so I imagine that working on a prototype EMF model that
>> corresponds to the hand written "model" in MWE today would be a very
>> useful contribution and an excellent way to get involved in the
>> project even as a committer.
>>
>>
>> Bryan Hunt wrote:
>>> Bernd, thanks for replying. If I were to come up with an example
>>> EMF model, would that model have to conform to the existing code
>>> base, or would I have the freedom to start with a fresh, simple
>>> design that could be built upon? I've poked around a bit at the
>>> source code and my ideas on this topic appear very similar to yours,
>>> but there are some things in the source that I don't understand, so
>>> I'd like to start with a simple model and go from there. I think
>>> better when I can see the model :)
>>>
>>> Bryan
>>>
>>> On 2008-04-03 15:22:00 -0500, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@kolbware.de> said:
>>>
>>>> For the time being it is not EMF based (for mostly historical reasons)
>>>> however this is one thing we'd like to change in the future.
>>>


Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #616079 is a reply to message #116843] Fri, 04 April 2008 18:53 Go to previous message
Bryan Hunt is currently offline Bryan HuntFriend
Messages: 366
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I've secured proper permission to work on this on my own time. I'll
try to work up an EMF model in the next few days. That should give us
something concrete to discuss.

Bryan
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #616082 is a reply to message #116922] Sun, 06 April 2008 05:15 Go to previous message
Bryan Hunt is currently offline Bryan HuntFriend
Messages: 366
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=225892

On 2008-04-04 13:53:50 -0500, Bryan Hunt <bhunt@mac.com> said:

> I've secured proper permission to work on this on my own time. I'll
> try to work up an EMF model in the next few days. That should give us
> something concrete to discuss.
>
> Bryan
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #616083 is a reply to message #116957] Sun, 06 April 2008 09:59 Go to previous message
Bernd Kolb is currently offline Bernd KolbFriend
Messages: 57
Registered: July 2009
Member
Great, thx :-)

I'll be at a customer the during the next week. However I'll try to have
a look at it.

Thanks again!

Bernd



Bryan Hunt schrieb:
> See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=225892
>
> On 2008-04-04 13:53:50 -0500, Bryan Hunt <bhunt@mac.com> said:
>
>> I've secured proper permission to work on this on my own time. I'll
>> try to work up an EMF model in the next few days. That should give us
>> something concrete to discuss.
>>
>> Bryan
>
>
Re: Workflow Engine ??? [message #616084 is a reply to message #116870] Sun, 06 April 2008 10:00 Go to previous message
Bernd Kolb is currently offline Bernd KolbFriend
Messages: 57
Registered: July 2009
Member
Ed Merks schrieb:
> Bernd,
>
> Blasphemy! A real model always has value.
>

:-) (We have a "real" model, it was just not emf..., but as said before,
we should (and will) change that)
Previous Topic:Search for all references to a specific instance
Next Topic:EMF Compare Diff Tree customization
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Jun 17 04:43:37 GMT 2021

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02794 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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

Back to the top