Home » Modeling » EMF "Technology" (Ecore Tools, EMFatic, etc) » [MWE] MWE project evolution?(Question to now if the MWE continues to evolve and will switch as official EMF project)
|
| Re: [MWE] MWE project evolution? [message #505876 is a reply to message #505869] |
Tue, 05 January 2010 12:53   |
 Sven Efftinge
Messages: 1823
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sebastien,
MWE is used in Xpand and Xtext and we've just started to work on a new
syntax for the MWE configuration file (based on Xtext).
To answer your question: The project is active, used and maintained.
For Helios we of course fix any serious bugs and as said we plan to come
up with better tooling, Xtext based language infrastructure and a more
lightweight runtime.
Best regards,
Sven
Sebastien Revol schrieb:
> Hi all,
> I'm very interested by the approach proposed by MWE. It would permit us
> to easily deliver and reuse elementary generators/transformations in an
> industrial context (command line) without having to develop/test tons of
> java code for each new workflow (which is often longer to write than the
> transformation itself...).
> However, before deploying tools in a production context relying on this
> solution, I'd like to be sure of the durability of this project.
>
> For instance the roadmap presented in the wiki does not seem up to date
> (last mileston on 2008-08-01).
> Is it planned that MWE continues to evolve and switch from incubation to
> official project?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Best regards,
>
> Sebastien Revol
>
--
Need professional support for Xtext and EMF?
Go to: http://xtext.itemis.com
Twitter : @svenefftinge
Blog : blog.efftinge.de
|
|
| |
| Re: [MWE] MWE project evolution? [message #506096 is a reply to message #505876] |
Wed, 06 January 2010 06:43 |
Sven Krause
Messages: 119
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sven,
what is planned there? We might have a proposal how to simplify workflow
usage and make it deployable.
In our flowr.org OS-project we've created a wrapper around the workflow
to allow declare variable to become workflow parameters and an extension
point to encapsulate bundles workflows to be deployed together with the
workflow components. So an simple workflow script looks like:
workflow "workflow-name" {
iterator {
fileset {
file extension matches "myExtension"
}
cartridge "org.flowr.gen.sample.EcoreGenerator" {
param "workspace.root" "${workspace.root}"
param "model" "${it.toUri()}"
param "genCommands" "GenModelCode,GenEditCode"
param "clean" "true"
}
cartridge "org.flowr.gen.sample.GmfGenerator" {
param "workspace.root" "${workspace.root}"
param "model" "${it.toUri()}"
param "genCommands" "GenModel,GenDiagram"
param "clean" "true"
}
}
}
Where the cartidges are registered via the extesion point and covers the
final workflows to be executed. These workflows are packages with the
workflow components able to execute the emf code generator and gmf code
generator in the example.
The workflow scripts creates on the fly the workflow invoking the
wrapped workflows:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<workflow>
<cartridge file="pluginpath.../EMFGen.oaw">
<workspace.root value="${workspace.root}" />
<model value="xxx.../xyz.genmodel" />
<genCommands value="GenModelCode,GenEditCode" />
<clean value="true" />
</cartridge>
<cartridge file="pluginpath.../GMFGen.oaw">
<model value="xxx.../xyz.genmodel" />
<clean value="true" />
<genCommands value="GenModel,GenDiagram" />
</cartridge>
</workflow>
Sven
PS: these workflow script concept might become part of the MFT project -
that is right now in proposal phase (http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mtf/).
Sven Efftinge schrieb:
> Hi Sebastien,
>
> MWE is used in Xpand and Xtext and we've just started to work on a new
> syntax for the MWE configuration file (based on Xtext).
> To answer your question: The project is active, used and maintained.
>
> For Helios we of course fix any serious bugs and as said we plan to come
> up with better tooling, Xtext based language infrastructure and a more
> lightweight runtime.
>
> Best regards,
> Sven
>
> Sebastien Revol schrieb:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm very interested by the approach proposed by MWE. It would permit
>> us to easily deliver and reuse elementary generators/transformations
>> in an industrial context (command line) without having to develop/test
>> tons of java code for each new workflow (which is often longer to
>> write than the transformation itself...).
>> However, before deploying tools in a production context relying on
>> this solution, I'd like to be sure of the durability of this project.
>>
>> For instance the roadmap presented in the wiki does not seem up to
>> date (last mileston on 2008-08-01).
>> Is it planned that MWE continues to evolve and switch from incubation
>> to official project?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Sebastien Revol
>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [MWE] MWE project evolution? [message #506907 is a reply to message #506096] |
Mon, 11 January 2010 10:21 |
Sven Efftinge
Messages: 1823
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sven,
Sebastian promised to post a blog showing the new editor in action this
week.
I'm not sure I understood what your solution is about...
Could you please line out a concrete use case?
Cheers,
Sven
Sven Krause schrieb:
> Hi Sven,
>
> what is planned there? We might have a proposal how to simplify workflow
> usage and make it deployable.
>
> In our flowr.org OS-project we've created a wrapper around the workflow
> to allow declare variable to become workflow parameters and an extension
> point to encapsulate bundles workflows to be deployed together with the
> workflow components. So an simple workflow script looks like:
>
> workflow "workflow-name" {
> iterator {
> fileset {
> file extension matches "myExtension"
> }
>
> cartridge "org.flowr.gen.sample.EcoreGenerator" {
> param "workspace.root" "${workspace.root}"
> param "model" "${it.toUri()}"
> param "genCommands" "GenModelCode,GenEditCode"
> param "clean" "true"
> }
>
> cartridge "org.flowr.gen.sample.GmfGenerator" {
> param "workspace.root" "${workspace.root}"
> param "model" "${it.toUri()}"
> param "genCommands" "GenModel,GenDiagram"
> param "clean" "true"
> }
> }
> }
>
> Where the cartidges are registered via the extesion point and covers the
> final workflows to be executed. These workflows are packages with the
> workflow components able to execute the emf code generator and gmf code
> generator in the example.
>
> The workflow scripts creates on the fly the workflow invoking the
> wrapped workflows:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <workflow>
> <cartridge file="pluginpath.../EMFGen.oaw">
> <workspace.root value="${workspace.root}" />
> <model value="xxx.../xyz.genmodel" />
> <genCommands value="GenModelCode,GenEditCode" />
> <clean value="true" />
> </cartridge>
> <cartridge file="pluginpath.../GMFGen.oaw">
> <model value="xxx.../xyz.genmodel" />
> <clean value="true" />
> <genCommands value="GenModel,GenDiagram" />
> </cartridge>
> </workflow>
>
> Sven
>
> PS: these workflow script concept might become part of the MFT project -
> that is right now in proposal phase
> (http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mtf/).
>
> Sven Efftinge schrieb:
>> Hi Sebastien,
>>
>> MWE is used in Xpand and Xtext and we've just started to work on a new
>> syntax for the MWE configuration file (based on Xtext).
>> To answer your question: The project is active, used and maintained.
>>
>> For Helios we of course fix any serious bugs and as said we plan to
>> come up with better tooling, Xtext based language infrastructure and a
>> more lightweight runtime.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Sven
>>
>> Sebastien Revol schrieb:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'm very interested by the approach proposed by MWE. It would permit
>>> us to easily deliver and reuse elementary generators/transformations
>>> in an industrial context (command line) without having to
>>> develop/test tons of java code for each new workflow (which is often
>>> longer to write than the transformation itself...).
>>> However, before deploying tools in a production context relying on
>>> this solution, I'd like to be sure of the durability of this project.
>>>
>>> For instance the roadmap presented in the wiki does not seem up to
>>> date (last mileston on 2008-08-01).
>>> Is it planned that MWE continues to evolve and switch from incubation
>>> to official project?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Sebastien Revol
>>>
>>
>>
--
Need professional support for Xtext and EMF?
Go to: http://xtext.itemis.com
Twitter : @svenefftinge
Blog : blog.efftinge.de
|
|
|
| Re: [MWE] MWE project evolution? [message #507293 is a reply to message #505876] |
Tue, 12 January 2010 18:58 |
Sven Efftinge
Messages: 1823
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Here's the mentioned blog post :
http://zarnekow.blogspot.com/2010/01/sneak-peek-at-new-mwe-e ditor.html
Sven
Sven Efftinge schrieb:
> Hi Sebastien,
>
> MWE is used in Xpand and Xtext and we've just started to work on a new
> syntax for the MWE configuration file (based on Xtext).
> To answer your question: The project is active, used and maintained.
>
> For Helios we of course fix any serious bugs and as said we plan to come
> up with better tooling, Xtext based language infrastructure and a more
> lightweight runtime.
>
> Best regards,
> Sven
>
> Sebastien Revol schrieb:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm very interested by the approach proposed by MWE. It would permit
>> us to easily deliver and reuse elementary generators/transformations
>> in an industrial context (command line) without having to develop/test
>> tons of java code for each new workflow (which is often longer to
>> write than the transformation itself...).
>> However, before deploying tools in a production context relying on
>> this solution, I'd like to be sure of the durability of this project.
>>
>> For instance the roadmap presented in the wiki does not seem up to
>> date (last mileston on 2008-08-01).
>> Is it planned that MWE continues to evolve and switch from incubation
>> to official project?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Sebastien Revol
>>
>
>
--
Need professional support for Xtext and EMF?
Go to: http://xtext.itemis.com
Twitter : @svenefftinge
Blog : blog.efftinge.de
|
|
|
| Re: [MWE] MWE project evolution? [message #507720 is a reply to message #507293] |
Thu, 14 January 2010 13:27 |
Sven Krause
Messages: 119
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sven, Sebastian,
using xtext makes the workflows much more readable. I really like this. It was one reason to start with the generator script feature I mentioned. The other was to hide the technical code gen details from the final user. This makes sense in my eyes, if you are creating MDE tool suites.
The request use case is very simple:
We have a system of various models that builds together a full description of a target system to generate. Each model corresponds to one of more workflows, which triggers the code gen and other things for the specific system unit the model describes - quasi software components at modeling level. The number of potential variants for such workflow combinations growth very fast, if the number of meta-models and/workflows increases.
So the genscripts allows iterating over a set of matching models executing the referenced workflows (covered by the cartridge). Available cartridges are registered via extension point ( http://flowr.org:8080/display/flowr/Step7+Create+a+generator +Cartridge).
The users "new script" dialog provides then a wizard, where the user may select the models to be generated and the system presents a set of pattern how to build the proper workflow generation. ( http://flowr.org:8080/display/flowr/Create+a+Generation+Scri pt)
The gen script is if you like a workflow for creating workflows on the fly based on user defined criteria.
Sven
[Updated on: Fri, 15 January 2010 05:53] Report message to a moderator |
|
| |
| Re: [MWE] MWE project evolution? [message #621962 is a reply to message #505876] |
Wed, 06 January 2010 06:43 |
Sven Krause
Messages: 119
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sven,
what is planned there? We might have a proposal how to simplify workflow
usage and make it deployable.
In our flowr.org OS-project we've created a wrapper around the workflow
to allow declare variable to become workflow parameters and an extension
point to encapsulate bundles workflows to be deployed together with the
workflow components. So an simple workflow script looks like:
workflow "workflow-name" {
iterator {
fileset {
file extension matches "myExtension"
}
cartridge "org.flowr.gen.sample.EcoreGenerator" {
param "workspace.root" "${workspace.root}"
param "model" "${it.toUri()}"
param "genCommands" "GenModelCode,GenEditCode"
param "clean" "true"
}
cartridge "org.flowr.gen.sample.GmfGenerator" {
param "workspace.root" "${workspace.root}"
param "model" "${it.toUri()}"
param "genCommands" "GenModel,GenDiagram"
param "clean" "true"
}
}
}
Where the cartidges are registered via the extesion point and covers the
final workflows to be executed. These workflows are packages with the
workflow components able to execute the emf code generator and gmf code
generator in the example.
The workflow scripts creates on the fly the workflow invoking the
wrapped workflows:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<workflow>
<cartridge file="pluginpath.../EMFGen.oaw">
<workspace.root value="${workspace.root}" />
<model value="xxx.../xyz.genmodel" />
<genCommands value="GenModelCode,GenEditCode" />
<clean value="true" />
</cartridge>
<cartridge file="pluginpath.../GMFGen.oaw">
<model value="xxx.../xyz.genmodel" />
<clean value="true" />
<genCommands value="GenModel,GenDiagram" />
</cartridge>
</workflow>
Sven
PS: these workflow script concept might become part of the MFT project -
that is right now in proposal phase (http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mtf/).
Sven Efftinge schrieb:
> Hi Sebastien,
>
> MWE is used in Xpand and Xtext and we've just started to work on a new
> syntax for the MWE configuration file (based on Xtext).
> To answer your question: The project is active, used and maintained.
>
> For Helios we of course fix any serious bugs and as said we plan to come
> up with better tooling, Xtext based language infrastructure and a more
> lightweight runtime.
>
> Best regards,
> Sven
>
> Sebastien Revol schrieb:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm very interested by the approach proposed by MWE. It would permit
>> us to easily deliver and reuse elementary generators/transformations
>> in an industrial context (command line) without having to develop/test
>> tons of java code for each new workflow (which is often longer to
>> write than the transformation itself...).
>> However, before deploying tools in a production context relying on
>> this solution, I'd like to be sure of the durability of this project.
>>
>> For instance the roadmap presented in the wiki does not seem up to
>> date (last mileston on 2008-08-01).
>> Is it planned that MWE continues to evolve and switch from incubation
>> to official project?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Sebastien Revol
>>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: [MWE] MWE project evolution? [message #621981 is a reply to message #506096] |
Mon, 11 January 2010 10:21 |
Sven Efftinge
Messages: 1823
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Sven,
Sebastian promised to post a blog showing the new editor in action this
week.
I'm not sure I understood what your solution is about...
Could you please line out a concrete use case?
Cheers,
Sven
Sven Krause schrieb:
> Hi Sven,
>
> what is planned there? We might have a proposal how to simplify workflow
> usage and make it deployable.
>
> In our flowr.org OS-project we've created a wrapper around the workflow
> to allow declare variable to become workflow parameters and an extension
> point to encapsulate bundles workflows to be deployed together with the
> workflow components. So an simple workflow script looks like:
>
> workflow "workflow-name" {
> iterator {
> fileset {
> file extension matches "myExtension"
> }
>
> cartridge "org.flowr.gen.sample.EcoreGenerator" {
> param "workspace.root" "${workspace.root}"
> param "model" "${it.toUri()}"
> param "genCommands" "GenModelCode,GenEditCode"
> param "clean" "true"
> }
>
> cartridge "org.flowr.gen.sample.GmfGenerator" {
> param "workspace.root" "${workspace.root}"
> param "model" "${it.toUri()}"
> param "genCommands" "GenModel,GenDiagram"
> param "clean" "true"
> }
> }
> }
>
> Where the cartidges are registered via the extesion point and covers the
> final workflows to be executed. These workflows are packages with the
> workflow components able to execute the emf code generator and gmf code
> generator in the example.
>
> The workflow scripts creates on the fly the workflow invoking the
> wrapped workflows:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <workflow>
> <cartridge file="pluginpath.../EMFGen.oaw">
> <workspace.root value="${workspace.root}" />
> <model value="xxx.../xyz.genmodel" />
> <genCommands value="GenModelCode,GenEditCode" />
> <clean value="true" />
> </cartridge>
> <cartridge file="pluginpath.../GMFGen.oaw">
> <model value="xxx.../xyz.genmodel" />
> <clean value="true" />
> <genCommands value="GenModel,GenDiagram" />
> </cartridge>
> </workflow>
>
> Sven
>
> PS: these workflow script concept might become part of the MFT project -
> that is right now in proposal phase
> (http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/mtf/).
>
> Sven Efftinge schrieb:
>> Hi Sebastien,
>>
>> MWE is used in Xpand and Xtext and we've just started to work on a new
>> syntax for the MWE configuration file (based on Xtext).
>> To answer your question: The project is active, used and maintained.
>>
>> For Helios we of course fix any serious bugs and as said we plan to
>> come up with better tooling, Xtext based language infrastructure and a
>> more lightweight runtime.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Sven
>>
>> Sebastien Revol schrieb:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'm very interested by the approach proposed by MWE. It would permit
>>> us to easily deliver and reuse elementary generators/transformations
>>> in an industrial context (command line) without having to
>>> develop/test tons of java code for each new workflow (which is often
>>> longer to write than the transformation itself...).
>>> However, before deploying tools in a production context relying on
>>> this solution, I'd like to be sure of the durability of this project.
>>>
>>> For instance the roadmap presented in the wiki does not seem up to
>>> date (last mileston on 2008-08-01).
>>> Is it planned that MWE continues to evolve and switch from incubation
>>> to official project?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Sebastien Revol
>>>
>>
>>
--
Need professional support for Xtext and EMF?
Go to: http://xtext.itemis.com
Twitter : @svenefftinge
Blog : blog.efftinge.de
|
|
|
| Re: [MWE] MWE project evolution? [message #621989 is a reply to message #505876] |
Tue, 12 January 2010 18:58 |
Sven Efftinge
Messages: 1823
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Here's the mentioned blog post :
http://zarnekow.blogspot.com/2010/01/sneak-peek-at-new-mwe-e ditor.html
Sven
Sven Efftinge schrieb:
> Hi Sebastien,
>
> MWE is used in Xpand and Xtext and we've just started to work on a new
> syntax for the MWE configuration file (based on Xtext).
> To answer your question: The project is active, used and maintained.
>
> For Helios we of course fix any serious bugs and as said we plan to come
> up with better tooling, Xtext based language infrastructure and a more
> lightweight runtime.
>
> Best regards,
> Sven
>
> Sebastien Revol schrieb:
>> Hi all,
>> I'm very interested by the approach proposed by MWE. It would permit
>> us to easily deliver and reuse elementary generators/transformations
>> in an industrial context (command line) without having to develop/test
>> tons of java code for each new workflow (which is often longer to
>> write than the transformation itself...).
>> However, before deploying tools in a production context relying on
>> this solution, I'd like to be sure of the durability of this project.
>>
>> For instance the roadmap presented in the wiki does not seem up to
>> date (last mileston on 2008-08-01).
>> Is it planned that MWE continues to evolve and switch from incubation
>> to official project?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Sebastien Revol
>>
>
>
--
Need professional support for Xtext and EMF?
Go to: http://xtext.itemis.com
Twitter : @svenefftinge
Blog : blog.efftinge.de
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Jun 04 21:44:14 GMT 2023
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03089 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
