Re: km3 -> ecore - bad practice in metamodeling? [message #381751] |
Thu, 20 March 2008 18:53 |
Ed Merks Messages: 33216 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Matti,
I'm not sure what to say. This issue came up recently on the GMT
newgroup and it's something that KM3 folks need to consider. Something
like annotations to specify things not in KM3 but needed in Ecore would
seem to make sense.
Matti Husu wrote:
> Hi, please tell me what do you think and is there a way to avoid the
> problems below.
>
> First you specify metamodel with KM3 there has to be Primitive types
> package if classes have attributes (String, Boolean...).
>
> Then you inject it to a .ecore file. Everything is cool. But if you
> want to make an editor (EMF/GEF or GMF) you need .genmodel.
> This can't be created at least on Eclipse 3.2.1/EMF 2.2.1
>
> In Eclipse 3.3.1.1 you can but you have to specify nsUri etc for the
> PrimitiveTypes-package and corresponding java classes for Integer etc.
>
> I think GMF-ecore diagram editor is more handy.
>
> -Matti
>
Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: km3 -> ecore - bad practice in metamodeling? [message #381755 is a reply to message #381752] |
Fri, 21 March 2008 09:01 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: mthusu.cs.helsinki.fi
Hi, not yet. I read about it and it's supposed to be good wih EMF. I will
try it. Right now I'm going to work with my thesis with the tools I have
chosen. I think I chose "KM3 over Emfatic" because KM3 is closely related
to ATL/AMW. For practical metamodeling Emfatic is maybe better. One way is
also to use GEMS. You get editor and all in just minutes. But... the
metamodel gets "polluted" with some mysterious stuff (Memento etc) and
diagram location stuff. I really don't understand why they haven't
separated this stuff from actual metamodel.
-Matti
|
|
|
Re: km3 -> ecore - bad practice in metamodeling? [message #381756 is a reply to message #381754] |
Fri, 21 March 2008 09:11 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: mthusu.cs.helsinki.fi
Hello, yes this annotation thing sounds good. As KM3 is supposed to be
technologically independent and simple, PrimitiveTypes approach is not a
flaw at all.
-Regards Matti
Dimitrios Kolovos wrote:
> Hi Frédéric,
> Frédéric Jouault wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>> Have you tried Emfatic? It is quite similar to KM3 but EMF-specific.
>>
>> ... and therefore Java-specific.
> Indeed. However, I felt that practicality - as opposed to
> purity/technology independence - was the main concern in the original
> post, and Emfatic provides built-in support for the required features.
>>
>>>> I'm not sure what to say. This issue came up recently on the GMT
>>>> newgroup and it's something that KM3 folks need to consider.
>>>> Something like annotations to specify things not in KM3 but needed in
>>>> Ecore would seem to make sense.
>>
>> Indeed, this is how it works. Here is for instance the ATL annotation
>> model that complements the ATL KM3 metamodel:
>>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.m2m/org .eclipse.m2m.atl/dsls/ATL/Metamodel/ATL.ann?root=Modeling_Pr oject&view=markup
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Frédéric Jouault
> Greetings from York,
> Dimitrios
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: km3 -> ecore - bad practice in metamodeling? [message #614493 is a reply to message #381752] |
Fri, 21 March 2008 09:01 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: mthusu.cs.helsinki.fi
Hi, not yet. I read about it and it's supposed to be good wih EMF. I will
try it. Right now I'm going to work with my thesis with the tools I have
chosen. I think I chose "KM3 over Emfatic" because KM3 is closely related
to ATL/AMW. For practical metamodeling Emfatic is maybe better. One way is
also to use GEMS. You get editor and all in just minutes. But... the
metamodel gets "polluted" with some mysterious stuff (Memento etc) and
diagram location stuff. I really don't understand why they haven't
separated this stuff from actual metamodel.
-Matti
|
|
|
Re: km3 -> ecore - bad practice in metamodeling? [message #614495 is a reply to message #381754] |
Fri, 21 March 2008 09:11 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: mthusu.cs.helsinki.fi
Hello, yes this annotation thing sounds good. As KM3 is supposed to be
technologically independent and simple, PrimitiveTypes approach is not a
flaw at all.
-Regards Matti
Dimitrios Kolovos wrote:
> Hi Frédéric,
> Frédéric Jouault wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>> Have you tried Emfatic? It is quite similar to KM3 but EMF-specific.
>>
>> ... and therefore Java-specific.
> Indeed. However, I felt that practicality - as opposed to
> purity/technology independence - was the main concern in the original
> post, and Emfatic provides built-in support for the required features.
>>
>>>> I'm not sure what to say. This issue came up recently on the GMT
>>>> newgroup and it's something that KM3 folks need to consider.
>>>> Something like annotations to specify things not in KM3 but needed in
>>>> Ecore would seem to make sense.
>>
>> Indeed, this is how it works. Here is for instance the ATL annotation
>> model that complements the ATL KM3 metamodel:
>>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.m2m/org .eclipse.m2m.atl/dsls/ATL/Metamodel/ATL.ann?root=Modeling_Pr oject&view=markup
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Frédéric Jouault
> Greetings from York,
> Dimitrios
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.05562 seconds