| Re: [mdt-ocl.dev] OclInEcore feedback |
Hi Adolfo
- I have done minor changes/corrections in the wiki entry.
Thanks
- I would avoid mentioning "Ecore-Constraints" and "Ecore-Invariants" terms, since it may be confusing and it doesn't fit from an OCL point of view. If EMF provides a different way to validate an EClassifier instances, it is not definetely part of a guide about how to integrate OCL constraints in an Ecore model, specially when this way ("Ecore-Invariants") doesn't provide any additional enhancement. It only provokes the user to think about the the terms and the difference between an Ecore-constraint and an Ecore-invariant. Furthermore, an OCL invariant is thought to be applied to an EClassifier, while an "Ecore-Invariant" could only be applied to EClasses. Therefore, I would only mention the term EClassifier Invariants and I'd suppress the "Ecore-invariant" case.I would much prefer to do this, but the discussion at https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=191689#c43 and beyond suggests that both are valid Ecore behaviour. We therefore have the problem that Ecore capability and terminology is confusing from an OCL perspective. The wiki needs to be clear, but must not hide the confusion. I felt that the pedantic usage of "Ecore-Invariant" was correct. Perhaps it needs a bit more introduction.
- If you provided in a branch or somewhere the OclInEcore editor, I could try to install the example and fullfill the missing <Description to be provided.> part.I have permission for a Direct-to-Head commit for these examples so I could do it any time, I just keep finding that I want it to be more and more like the Sample Ecore Editor; full Ecore in the Outline, full text in the Editor, this requires that every incremental compilation update the Ecore annotations, avoiding any dilemma as to whether the text document or Ecore resource is the master. I'll try and put everything in this weekend.
I've just raised bug 304642 to revise the documentation. It would be really good if one person read all the documentation so that we can gain some consistency. It would be great if you can do this; as a non-native English speaker you are more critical of clumsy verbosity. Please do simple changes, and raise separate bugzillas for more substantive efforts that you do not have time for; a list of three URLs with conflicting descriptions at least helps the next guy.Apart from that:1. I think that the old-fashioned documentation article which explained how to introduce OCL constraints in a metamodel using custom JET templates should be replaced by this one when it's completed. I could invest some time to do that. 2. I think there were some open bugzillas recalling an update of the documentation article mentioned above. I'll find them to solve.
Regards
Ed