Eclipse Community Forums: Modeling (top-level project)

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » Modeling (top-level project) » Modeling package

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

Modeling package [message #381345]

Wed, 31 October 2007 11:47

Richard Gronback

Messages: 605
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3276661646_9564209
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

We

Report message to a moderator

Re: Modeling package [message #381346 is a reply to message #381345]

Wed, 31 October 2007 17:07

Ed Merks

Messages: 33137
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020708090001080501030800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rich,

I certainly wouldn't be happy to exclude incubating components. I think
it should be sufficient that any component that's conforming to the
Ganymede rules be eligible for inclusion in the modeling package.
There are an awful lot of valuable and cool EMFT components that should
be included and it would be silly to exclude the UMLTools...

The SDK issue is a bit of a tricky one too. Source code is awfully
useful when such a large percentage of the users will be generating code
that extends the framework and will likely find themselves handicapped
without the framework source code.

We ought to talk to the STP folks about including BPMN too...

Richard Gronback wrote:
> We've been discussing a Modeling package for a while, so as suggested,
> I'm posting here and to the Modeling newsgroup to move ahead with its
> proposal and definition.
>
> In accordance with the proposed policies
> ( http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.pac kaging/msg00100.html),
> < http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.pac kaging/msg00100.html%29,>
> it seems we should create a package that includes features shipping
> under the "Models and Model Development" category of Europa/Ganymede
> (and their dependencies). This would be:
>
> * EMF Runtime
> * EMF SDO
> * XSD
> * EMF Data Integrity Frameworks (Query/Transaction/Validation)
> * JET
> * GMF
> * EODM
> * OCL
> * UML2
> * UML2 Tools
>
>
> To comply with policy 6a, which requires a 1.0 release or later, we'd
> need to exclude JET, EODM, and UML2 Tools. The most concerning aspect
> of this is the loss of UML2 Tools, which would mean the Modeling
> package would have no UML diagramming. How firm is this requirement?
>
> Note that we may also add components to Ganymede before the M4 cutoff
> on December 14th (e.g. M2M QVTO and M2T Xpand).
>
> I suspect to keep with policy 3, which requires keeping the packages
> as small as possible, we should not include SDK features. Does this
> present a problem to anyone?
>
> Another point to consider are those "modeling" features found outside
> of the Modeling project. For example, STP has a BPMN diagramming
> feature. Should we look to include all end user modeling/diagramming
> features in this package?
>
> Thanks,
> Rich

--------------020708090001080501030800
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">
Rich, 
 
I certainly wouldn't be happy to exclude incubating components.  I
think it should be sufficient that any component that's conforming to
the Ganymede rules be eligible for inclusion in the  modeling package. 
There are an awful lot of valuable and cool EMFT components that should
be included and it would be silly to exclude the UMLTools... 
 
The SDK issue is a bit of a tricky one too.  Source code is awfully
useful when such a large percentage of the users will be generating
code that extends the framework and will likely find themselves
handicapped without the framework source code. 
 
We ought to talk to the STP folks about including BPMN too... 
 
 
Richard Gronback wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:C34DE38C.1EA92%25richard.gronback@borland.com"
type="cite">
<title>Modeling package</title>
We’ve
been discussing a Modeling package for a while, so as suggested, I’m
posting here and to the Modeling newsgroup to move ahead with its
proposal and definition. 
 
In accordance with the proposed policies (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href=" http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.pac kaging/msg00100.html%29,"> http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.pac kaging/msg00100.html),</a>
it seems we should create a package that includes features shipping
under the “Models and Model Development” category of Europa/Ganymede
(and their dependencies).  This would be: 
 

<ul>
<li>EMF Runtime
</li>
<li>EMF SDO
</li>
<li>XSD
</li>
<li>EMF Data Integrity Frameworks
(Query/Transaction/Validation)
</li>
<li>JET
</li>
<li>GMF
</li>
<li>EODM
</li>
<li>OCL
</li>
<li>UML2
</li>
<li>UML2 Tools 
</li>
</ul>
 
To comply with policy 6a, which requires a 1.0 release or later, we’d
need to exclude JET, EODM, and UML2 Tools.  The most concerning aspect
of this is the loss of UML2 Tools, which would mean the Modeling
package would have no UML diagramming.  How firm is this requirement?   
 
Note that we may also add components to Ganymede before the M4 cutoff
on December 14th (e.g. M2M QVTO and M2T Xpand). 
 
I suspect to keep with policy 3, which requires keeping the packages as
small as possible, we should not include SDK features.  Does this
present a problem to anyone? 
 
Another point to consider are those “modeling” features found outside
of the Modeling project.  For example, STP has a BPMN diagramming
feature.  Should we look to include all end user modeling/diagramming
features in this package? 
 
Thanks, 
Rich
</blockquote>
 
</body>
</html>

--------------020708090001080501030800--

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Modeling package [message #381347 is a reply to message #381346]

Wed, 31 October 2007 19:08

Eric Rizzo

Messages: 3070
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Ed Merks wrote:
> Rich,
>
> I certainly wouldn't be happy to exclude incubating components. I think
> it should be sufficient that any component that's conforming to the
> Ganymede rules be eligible for inclusion in the modeling package.
> There are an awful lot of valuable and cool EMFT components that should
> be included and it would be silly to exclude the UMLTools...

Doesn't EMF "core" use JET for its code generation already? In other
words, if you're already including EMF doesn't that mean you are getting
JET (even though it is <1.0)?

> The SDK issue is a bit of a tricky one too. Source code is awfully
> useful when such a large percentage of the users will be generating code
> that extends the framework and will likely find themselves handicapped
> without the framework source code.

I'll second that - I would never want to work on an EMF-based project
without having the EMF code handy. Debugging would be nigh impossible.

Eric

> Richard Gronback wrote:
>> We’ve been discussing a Modeling package for a while, so as suggested,
>> I’m posting here and to the Modeling newsgroup to move ahead with its
>> proposal and definition.
>>
>> In accordance with the proposed policies
>> ( http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.pac kaging/msg00100.html),
>> < http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.pac kaging/msg00100.html%29,>
>> it seems we should create a package that includes features shipping
>> under the “Models and Model Development” category of Europa/Ganymede
>> (and their dependencies). This would be:
>>
>> * EMF Runtime
>> * EMF SDO
>> * XSD
>> * EMF Data Integrity Frameworks (Query/Transaction/Validation)
>> * JET
>> * GMF
>> * EODM
>> * OCL
>> * UML2
>> * UML2 Tools
>>
>>
>> To comply with policy 6a, which requires a 1.0 release or later, we’d
>> need to exclude JET, EODM, and UML2 Tools. The most concerning aspect
>> of this is the loss of UML2 Tools, which would mean the Modeling
>> package would have no UML diagramming. How firm is this requirement?
>>
>> Note that we may also add components to Ganymede before the M4 cutoff
>> on December 14th (e.g. M2M QVTO and M2T Xpand).
>>
>> I suspect to keep with policy 3, which requires keeping the packages
>> as small as possible, we should not include SDK features. Does this
>> present a problem to anyone?
>>
>> Another point to consider are those “modeling” features found outside
>> of the Modeling project. For example, STP has a BPMN diagramming
>> feature. Should we look to include all end user modeling/diagramming
>> features in this package?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rich
>

Report message to a moderator

Re: Modeling package [message #381348 is a reply to message #381347]

Wed, 31 October 2007 19:25

Ed Merks

Messages: 33137
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Eric,

EMF is still using its own local version of JET rather than reusing the
JET project's version.

I personally find myself extremely frustrated when I debug and can't see
code for everything on the stack. So I think that excluding the SDK
likely makes sense for most packages, but probably doesn't make so much
sense for tools used to generate code that extends a framework.

Eric Rizzo wrote:
> Ed Merks wrote:
>> Rich,
>>
>> I certainly wouldn't be happy to exclude incubating components. I
>> think it should be sufficient that any component that's conforming to
>> the Ganymede rules be eligible for inclusion in the modeling
>> package. There are an awful lot of valuable and cool EMFT components
>> that should be included and it would be silly to exclude the UMLTools...
>
> Doesn't EMF "core" use JET for its code generation already? In other
> words, if you're already including EMF doesn't that mean you are
> getting JET (even though it is <1.0)?
>
>
>> The SDK issue is a bit of a tricky one too. Source code is awfully
>> useful when such a large percentage of the users will be generating
>> code that extends the framework and will likely find themselves
>> handicapped without the framework source code.
>
> I'll second that - I would never want to work on an EMF-based project
> without having the EMF code handy. Debugging would be nigh impossible.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>> Richard Gronback wrote:
>>> We’ve been discussing a Modeling package for a while, so as
>>> suggested, I’m posting here and to the Modeling newsgroup to move
>>> ahead with its proposal and definition.
>>>
>>> In accordance with the proposed policies
>>> ( http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.pac kaging/msg00100.html),
>>> < http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.pac kaging/msg00100.html%29,>
>>> it seems we should create a package that includes features shipping
>>> under the “Models and Model Development” category of Europa/Ganymede
>>> (and their dependencies). This would be:
>>>
>>> * EMF Runtime
>>> * EMF SDO
>>> * XSD
>>> * EMF Data Integrity Frameworks (Query/Transaction/Validation)
>>> * JET
>>> * GMF
>>> * EODM
>>> * OCL
>>> * UML2
>>> * UML2 Tools
>>>
>>>
>>> To comply with policy 6a, which requires a 1.0 release or later,
>>> we’d need to exclude JET, EODM, and UML2 Tools. The most concerning
>>> aspect of this is the loss of UML2 Tools, which would mean the
>>> Modeling package would have no UML diagramming. How firm is this
>>> requirement?
>>> Note that we may also add components to Ganymede before the M4
>>> cutoff on December 14th (e.g. M2M QVTO and M2T Xpand).
>>>
>>> I suspect to keep with policy 3, which requires keeping the packages
>>> as small as possible, we should not include SDK features. Does this
>>> present a problem to anyone?
>>>
>>> Another point to consider are those “modeling” features found
>>> outside of the Modeling project. For example, STP has a BPMN
>>> diagramming feature. Should we look to include all end user
>>> modeling/diagramming features in this package?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rich
>>
>

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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Modeling package [message #381350 is a reply to message #381346]

Wed, 31 October 2007 19:44

Richard Gronback

Messages: 605
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3276690265_11284137
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

Well, I certainly agree on the SDK part, as all of the tooling and
generation for GMF is only available in the SDK. I was just trying to
consider the posted policy ;)

And, I definitely would be in favor of including incubating components.
Let

Report message to a moderator

Re: Modeling package [message #381352 is a reply to message #381345]

Thu, 01 November 2007 13:46

Ian Skerrett

Messages: 210
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C81C6C.2597CC10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Modeling packageRich,

IMO, the 'policies' for EPP are how the EPP project will make decisions =
on building the packages they are responsible for; specifically the four =
they do today. If the modeling top level project, or for that matter =
anyone else, created their own package, you have the freedom to decide =
what you want in it.

I 'hope' that a number of groups/individuals will create their own =
packages in time for Ganymede and we will create a 'cool packages' page =
that contains all of the community packages. We would link to this =
page from the download page. Make sense?
"Richard Gronback" <richard.gronback@borland.com> wrote in message =
news:C34DE38C.1EA92%richard.gronback@borland.com...
We've been discussing a Modeling package for a while, so as suggested, =
I'm posting here and to the Modeling newsgroup to move ahead with its =
proposal and definition.

In accordance with the proposed policies =
( http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.pac kaging/msg00=
100.html), it seems we should create a package that includes features =
shipping under the "Models and Model Development" category of =
Europa/Ganymede (and their dependencies). This would be:

a.. EMF Runtime=20
b.. EMF SDO=20
c.. XSD=20
d.. EMF Data Integrity Frameworks (Query/Transaction/Validation)=20
e.. JET=20
f.. GMF=20
g.. EODM=20
h.. OCL=20
i.. UML2=20
j.. UML2 Tools

To comply with policy 6a, which requires a 1.0 release or later, we'd =
need to exclude JET, EODM, and UML2 Tools. The most concerning aspect =
of this is the loss of UML2 Tools, which would mean the Modeling package =
would have no UML diagramming. How firm is this requirement? =20

Note that we may also add components to Ganymede before the M4 cutoff =
on December 14th (e.g. M2M QVTO and M2T Xpand).

I suspect to keep with policy 3, which requires keeping the packages =
as small as possible, we should not include SDK features. Does this =
present a problem to anyone?

Another point to consider are those "modeling" features found outside =
of the Modeling project. For example, STP has a BPMN diagramming =
feature. Should we look to include all end user modeling/diagramming =
features in this package?

Thanks,
Rich
------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C81C6C.2597CC10
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Modeling package</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.3199" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Rich,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>IMO, the 'policies' for EPP are how the =
EPP project=20
will make decisions on building the packages they are responsible for;=20
specifically the four they do today.   If the modeling top =
level=20
project, or for that matter anyone else, created their own package, you =
have the=20
freedom to decide what you want in it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I 'hope' that a number of =
groups/individuals will=20
create their own packages in time for Ganymede and we will create a =
'cool=20
packages' page that contains all of the community packages.   =
We would=20
link to this page from the download page.   Make =
sense?</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Richard Gronback" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:richard.gronback@borland.com">richard.gronback@borland.com=
</A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:C34DE38C.1EA92%richard.gronback@borland.com">news:C34DE38C.1=
EA92%richard.gronback@borland.com</A>...</DIV><FONT=20
face=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial">We=92ve been=20
discussing a Modeling package for a while, so as suggested, I=92m =
posting here=20
and to the Modeling newsgroup to move ahead with its proposal and=20
definition. In accordance with the proposed policies (<A=20
=
href=3D" http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technology.pac kagin=
g/msg00100.html),">http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.technolo=
gy.packaging/msg00100.html),</A>=20
it seems we should create a package that includes features shipping =
under the=20
=93Models and Model Development=94 category of Europa/Ganymede (and =
their=20
dependencies).  This would be: 
<UL>
<LI>EMF=20
Runtime 
<LI>EMF=20
SDO 
<LI>XSD=20

<LI>EMF=20
Data Integrity Frameworks (Query/Transaction/Validation) =

<LI>JET=20

<LI>GMF=20

<LI><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">EODM 
<LI>OCL=20

<LI><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">UML2 
<LI><SPAN=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12px">UML2 =
Tools </LI></UL><FONT=20
face=3D"Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"> To comply=20
with policy 6a, which requires a 1.0 release or later, we=92d need to =
exclude=20
JET, EODM, and UML2 Tools.  The most concerning aspect of this is =
the=20
loss of UML2 Tools, which would mean the Modeling package would have =
no UML=20
diagramming.  How firm is this requirement?   Note =
that we=20
may also add components to Ganymede before the M4 cutoff on December =
14th=20
(e.g. M2M QVTO and M2T Xpand). I suspect to keep with policy 3, =
which=20
requires keeping the packages as small as possible, we should not =
include SDK=20
features.  Does this present a problem to anyone? Another =
point to=20
consider are those =93modeling=94 features found outside of the =
Modeling project.=20
 For example, STP has a BPMN diagramming feature.  Should we =
look to=20
include all end user modeling/diagramming features in this=20
package? Thanks, Rich =
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C81C6C.2597CC10--

Report message to a moderator

Re: Modeling package [message #381354 is a reply to message #381352]

Thu, 01 November 2007 13:55

Richard Gronback

Messages: 605
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3276755755_15196252
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

Makes sense to me, Ian. Thanks for the clarification.

I suggest we (finally) decide up what we

Report message to a moderator