[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [mdt-bpmn2.dev] Splitting up BPMN20.ecore
- From: "Hille-Doering, Reiner" <reiner.hille-doering@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:37:17 +0200
- Accept-language: de-DE, en-US
- Acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Thread-index: Ac0Kbi5VaP7fdBVKTn6Tt9knusTWewAxNdgQ
- Thread-topic: [mdt-bpmn2.dev] Splitting up BPMN20.ecore
first of all welcome to the BPMN2 project.
Now about your idea: It sounds good, but ...
The Ecores in BPMN2 are generated(merged) from 2 OMG sources - CMOF and XSDs. Details can be found in my articles that are linked from our wiki. Unfortunately BPMN2.0 might have a logical layering, but physically all the semantic stuff is in one file - in both CMOF and XSD.
If we would break the ECORE not into multiple files, it would become impossible to redo the generation. So I would only do it, it we are 100% sure, that a regeneration will definitely not happen.
Besides of this technical problem, it would be a lot of work. Do you know a technical way to decide to which submodel a class would belong? They are all in the same namespace and I don't know any (meta-) attribute that would allow us the qualification.
PS: I will comment on the other question in Bugzilla soon.
From: mdt-bpmn2.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-bpmn2.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Benedikt Ritter
Sent: Sonntag, 25. März 2012 12:01
Subject: [mdt-bpmn2.dev] Splitting up BPMN20.ecore
BPMN20.ecore is really huge. Why don't we split it up the way, the
BPMN meta model is split up in the spec? We would have four referenced
* Common Elements
What do you think?
mdt-bpmn2.dev mailing list