Hi Adolfo
Would you like to put together a proposal for revised feature and
plugin names and hierarchy, since your releng perspective gives you
slightly different interests? 4.0.0 is a major version so we can
totally reorganize if absolutely necessary - I hope not.
From a modeling perspective, a Feature contain Features or Plugins
so a simple indented list is sufficient to identify the intended
location of all plugins and features and Update Site Names.
feature X (Descriptive Name for X)
plugin Y
feature Z (Descriptive Name for Z)
plugin A
For the sake of future proofing, assign names as if all plugins are
promoted from examples now; we'll just defer renaming examples
plugins until they are actually promoted.
Regards
Ed
On 03/02/2012 13:58, Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera wrote:
Finally, I would like to remark (I've not thought about it) the
importance of the new namespace from the point of view of another
stakeholder: The releng :). It could be interesting to avoid
problems like [1] or further changes in the releng stuff
configuration to accomodate new plugins, having a "coherent" or
"uniform" namespace to distinguish Core components from the Tools
one.
[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=370347#c1
El 03/02/2012 12:03, Ed Willink escribió:
plugin and other global names
These obviously change. The simplest change is just delete
".examples". Do we want to do something else?
It would be nice if the event plugins went to EMF, but that
doesn't look likely, so they too need review.
It would be nice to have names that can accommodate the pivot
model sometime. I would like to try to partition the code into
the run-time code that performs (re-)evaluation and the
meta-run-time code that maintains the control objects that make
IA so good. If this is possible, then we want corresponding
names. Perhaps
org.eclipse.ocl.ecore.impact.runtime
org.eclipse.ocl.ecore.impact.analyzer
I hope that migration of the run-time code to align with the
code generated Java can be done quite easily, since the code
generated Java makes no use of any form of the OCL meta-model;
just the polymorphic Values and polymorphic Domain model for
which there is direct and Reflective Ecore support. Perhaps
org.eclipse.ocl.domain.impact.runtime
Migration of the meta-run-time code will be harder because that
obviously makes use of the OCL meta-model. Perhaps
org.eclipse.ocl.pivot.impact.analyzer
In order to avoid code duplication, code that is independent of
Ecore/UML/Pivot should be in perhaps
org.eclipse.ocl.common.impact
It may also be appropriate to place some declarations
independent of Ecore/UML/Pivot such as extension points in
org.eclipse.ocl.common
We cannot easily use org.eclipse.ocl since that is highly
Ecore/UML dependent.
NB being independent of Ecore does not prohibit use of EObject,
EObject.eClass() etc. I hope that the external API facade can be
Ecore/UML/Pivot independent and so in
org.eclipse.ocl.common.impact.
|
