[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Notes of the preccomitting meeting
- From: Etienne Juliot <etienne.juliot@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:10:19 +0100
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- User-agent: Thunderbird 188.8.131.52 (Windows/20080914)
- yes, we want to have a clean architecture, without too much element
forced by framework constraints
- but if there are some name conventions or plugin organisations we
don't know how to do with GMF and generators constraints, lets be
realist and use them, but with keeping in mind to improve them by submit
feature request to these frameworks to allow to use several Template
- for IP submission, I think we can to NOT include these generatos, if
there are several problems. It will not be a problem for end users.
- for Properties generators, as Acceleo 4 will be based on MTL (OMG's
standard, like UML), I think the easiest way to commit them will be to
use this new engine already included in Eclipse Foundation. But it's too
early to speak about that, during this rush for IP submission.
Thibault LANDRE a écrit :
I know that Papyrus is different from GMF and from UML2Tools.
The GMF Papyrus generator are an extension of the GMF tool to simplify
the work for Papyrus developers. Those two plugins will be used only
OAW is used because some templates from GMF have to be overriden and
those template are done with OAW.
More, it is necessary to keep the same folder hierarchy than the bundle
"org.eclipse.gmf.codegen" to override existing templates.
Besides, to take into account the new templates defined, it is necessary
to defined the property "Template Directory" with the parent folder
containing all specific templates.
I don't know how to indicate more than one "Template Directory"
Additionnally, I don't think that it will change anything for the
developpers to have an unique plugin well structured (templates are
organized with folders int this plugin) instead of several plugins
with few templates in each one...
That's some of the reasons why I think it will be difficult to divide
into several plugins the generators...
For Properties, I know that generators exist. But as far as I know
(because I have never seen them, they are not present on the CEA svn),
they are realized with Acceleo and not OAW.
GERARD Sebastien 166342 a écrit :
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
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:
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 our case.
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.
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
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
adr;quoted-printable:;;2 rue Robert Schuman;Rez=C3=A9;;44400;France
tel;work:02 51 13 55 94
tel;fax:02 51 70 04 69
tel;cell:06 86 78 14 82