| QVT Relations [message #71364] |
Wed, 09 January 2008 20:37  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: arazavi.swen.uwaterloo.ca
Hi everyone,
I was loosely tracking the news about QVT Relations (Declarative) that is
pending to be released under M2M project. I recently browsed the CVS server
and noticed that there is something under the relation folder but did not
seem to be a full implementation of the promissed Declarative QVT. I would
like to inquire about the state of this project.
Thanks
Ali
|
|
|
| [QVTR] Re: QVT Relations [message #71479 is a reply to message #71364] |
Thu, 10 January 2008 10:31  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: quentin.glineur.obeo.fr
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080300060507010203010609
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi Ali,
Can you remember to prefix QVT Relations related posts by [QVTR] as I
did in the answer, thanks.
You are right, some code has been commited on the CVS. Indeed, the
implementation is not complete. We are using the CVS for development
purpose to show transparency according to the Eclipse good practices.
As you may have noticed, at this stage, we have focused on the compiler
development with its definition in ACG. This version of the compiler
should be functionnal for the checkonly mode but there still remain work
for the enforce mode.
We are currently working on an integration task (the launching of
compilations from Java code). Once this step is done, we shall have the
possibility to try some programmatic model preprocessing in order to
bypass a compiler problem (ACG label handling). This step is mandatory
for the enforce mode.
Happy new year,
Quentin GLINEUR
Ali Razavi a
|
|
|
| Re: [QVTR] Re: QVT Relations [message #71611 is a reply to message #71479] |
Thu, 10 January 2008 14:47 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: arazavi.swen.uwaterloo.ca
Thanks Quentin,
"Quentin Glineur" <quentin.glineur@obeo.fr> wrote in message
news:fm4s5c$ef4$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hi Ali,
>
> Can you remember to prefix QVT Relations related posts by [QVTR] as I
> did in the answer, thanks.
>
For sure, pardon me as I am new to the newsgroups of eclipse and not quite
familiar with the rules yet.
> You are right, some code has been commited on the CVS. Indeed, the
> implementation is not complete. We are using the CVS for development
> purpose to show transparency according to the Eclipse good practices.
>
> As you may have noticed, at this stage, we have focused on the compiler
> development with its definition in ACG. This version of the compiler
> should be functionnal for the checkonly mode but there still remain work
> for the enforce mode.
> We are currently working on an integration task (the launching of
> compilations from Java code). Once this step is done, we shall have the
> possibility to try some programmatic model preprocessing in order to
> bypass a compiler problem (ACG label handling). This step is mandatory
> for the enforce mode.
>
From what I understood, the implementation aims to map QVTR rules to ATL VM
bytecodes, in a similar way that QVTR->QVTCore mappings are specified in the
spec. There is a reference about something called Declarative QVT being
contributed by Compuware to the community in the M2M website. Is this
supposed to be a complement to that, or a parallel implementation. Any
chance you can tell me if the Declarative contribution will also include
Relations or it is only the Core part of the spec.
> Happy new year,
>
Best Regards
Happy new year to you too.
Ali
> Quentin GLINEUR
>
> Ali Razavi a
|
|
|
| Re: [QVTR] Re: QVT Relations [message #71649 is a reply to message #71611] |
Thu, 10 January 2008 15:38 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: quentin.glineur.obeo.fr
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000802020300050005030408
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Ali Razavi a
|
|
|
| Re: [QVTR] Re: QVT Relations [message #71784 is a reply to message #71649] |
Sat, 12 January 2008 15:39 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: arazavi.swen.uwaterloo.ca
Thanks Quentine for clarification. I am looking for a high-level,
declarative, incremental model transformation engine to be used in my PhD
project on model refactoring and synchronization. QVTR looked promissing
from the specification, although I couldnt find a ready to use open
implementation as for now. I have seen other academic efforts which might
fit into my framework with some tweaking, but I noticed that they were all
developed before the QVT final specification was released this year and thus
might be at the risk of being abondoned in favor of the OMG standard. Do you
have any suggestions ?
Thanks alot
Ali
"Quentin Glineur" <quentin.glineur@obeo.fr> wrote in message
news:fm5e5p$dni$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Ali Razavi a
|
|
|
| Re: [QVTR] Re: QVT Relations [message #71822 is a reply to message #71784] |
Mon, 14 January 2008 09:13 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: quentin.glineur.obeo.fr
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000900040506020109040705
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi, Ali
You are welcome. Indeed, QVT Relations meets your criteria from its
specification. Moreover, I agree with your point of view about choosing
a standard but please remember that QVT Relations specification is still
in beta version. As a consequence, my advice is to follow the the
evolution of the project as we shall discuss about the current active
development *and* the specification interpretation.
Any contribution about both is welcome :)
Regards,
Quentin GLINEUR
Ali Razavi a
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04334 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
