AW: [mdt-bpmn2.dev] Multi-file support

["Hille-Doering, Reiner" <reiner.hille-doering@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Henning,

wow, this is funny. You sent you mail almost exactly in the moment when I wrote my other one J .  Thanks to the work again – I agree with your proposals.

As I have already applied some of the issues in your Excel, but not completely, I would ask you to update it ones more to differentiate the fixed on non-fixed ones. And after you have done your feature in the templates, we continue in a coordinated manner ;-)

 

Regards,

  Reiner.

 

 

Von: mdt-bpmn2.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-bpmn2.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Henning Heitkötter
Gesendet: Montag, 23. August 2010 13:44
An: BPMN2 Developers Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [mdt-bpmn2.dev] Multi-file support

 

Hi Reiner,

that's good news!

2010/8/21 Hille-Doering, Reiner <reiner.hille-doering@xxxxxxx>

2.       For all those references, check if the target type is abstract. If yes, remove the abstract flag. If you like you could extend your Excel to mark those cases.

See the attached document.

3.       It would be good to store somewhere that the type was originally abstract to avoid users to accidently create instances of it (e.g. in the editor). But EMF must be able to create proxies of this type for sure. We could e.g. change use the genModel “image” flag for keeping the information of former abstract classes.

We could add another details entry to the ExtendedMetadata of these classes (e.g. abstract -> true). Additionally, I suggest to change the template FactoryClass.javajet to the effect that the create method for originally abstract classes does not appear in the interface Bpmn2Factory and is not public in Bpmn2FactoryImpl. Thus it can be created during deserialization (which calls EFactory.create(EClass)) but is somewhat hidden to users.
ItemProvider.javajet will likely have to be adapted as well (@ collectNewChildDescriptors).
If you're OK with that, I'd try to tweak the templates accordingly.

Regards,
Henning