[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Notes of the preccomitting meeting
- From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" <Sebastien.GERARD@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:10:11 +0100
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-index: AclE1/Ae/DvZtw/pRduDGItJ/2ukUAAAH0tw
- Thread-topic: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Notes of the preccomitting meeting
I second the comment of Cedric. It is clear that Papyrus is different from the UML2 MDT Tool, is clearly that Papyrus do not force the usage of the GMF generator.
De : mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Cedric Dumoulin
Envoyé : mercredi 12 novembre 2008 16:04
À : thibault.landre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Papyrus Project list
Objet : Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Notes of the preccomitting meeting
Thibault LANDRE wrote:
> I have named the plugin like they were denominated in the GMF and
> UMLTools project (for the same functionnality).
> I have kept this naming to avoid confusion for developers familiar
> with GMF and UMLTools.
The idea was good, but we are not a GMF demonstrator :-). They have
named their plugins like that because they are gmf centric. This is not
GMF is just a tool that we use to produce diagrams. The artefact used
for the generation should not appear abruptly in the plugins. And for me
the names of the plugins should gives clear indication of their
purpose/contents. 'def' and 'codegen' are not meaningful for me. This is
why they should be renamed.
Also, we may have such def/codegen for properties, diagrams and
others. How we will do ? Mix all the stuff in the same 'def' plugin ? I
think it is a bad idea.
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list