Eclipse Community Forums: EMF » "Interface Name Pattern" not considered during ecore model reload?

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » EMF » "Interface Name Pattern" not considered during ecore model reload?

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

"Interface Name Pattern" not considered during ecore model reload? [message #478681]

Thu, 06 August 2009 11:42

Eclipse User

Originally posted by: r.fluckiger.bluewin.ch

I try to generate an ecore model from annotated java interfaces that use
the "I" prefix for interfaces and no suffix for implementations. I added
"I{0}" to the Interface Name Pattern and "{0}" to the Class Name Pattern
model property. This way I end up with the generator creating new
interfaces with "II" prefixes alongside my already existing ones with the
single "I"... Somehow while reloading the ecore model from annotated java
interfaces the already existing prefix isn't considered by the model
generator... am I missing a flag somewhere or is it simply no possible to
create this kind of structure based on already "prefixed" java interfaces?

Report message to a moderator

Re: "Interface Name Pattern" not considered during ecore model reload? [message #478700 is a reply to message #478681]

Thu, 06 August 2009 12:39

Ed Merks

Messages: 33136
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Roman,

Comments below.

Roman Flückiger wrote:
> I try to generate an ecore model from annotated java interfaces that
> use the "I" prefix for interfaces and no suffix for implementations.
Annotated Java will just use exactly the names you've specified.
> I added "I{0}" to the Interface Name Pattern and "{0}" to the Class
> Name Pattern model property. This way I end up with the generator
> creating new interfaces with "II" prefixes alongside my already
> existing ones with the single "I"...
Yes, I'd expect that.
> Somehow while reloading the ecore model from annotated java interfaces
> the already existing prefix isn't considered by the model generator...
The JavaEcoreBuilder knows nothing about the GenModel's prefix/suffix
conventions.
> am I missing a flag somewhere or is it simply no possible to create
> this kind of structure based on already "prefixed" java interfaces?
It's currently unsupported.

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

Report message to a moderator