[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [modeling-pmc] Contribution: template engine for GMF
|
Rich,
I assume that "asap" in the
second bullet below means by the time we release GMF 2.0? I don't think
we should be releasing these bits in GMF if they are being released in
M2T at the same time...
Kenn Hussey
Eclipse UML2 Project Lead
Rational Software, IBM Software Group
770 Palladium Drive
Kanata, Ontario, K2V 1C8
T: (613) 599-3980 F: (613) 599-3912
Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/22/2006 01:11 PM
Please respond to
PMC members mailing list <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| PMC members mailing list <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
| Sven Efftinge <sven@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
voelter@xxxxxxx
|
Subject
| Re: [modeling-pmc] Contribution: template
engine for GMF |
|
The sandbox approach is not an option at
this time (per the Board of Directors), afaiu.
I’m not opposed to temporarily housing this derivative of xPand within
an GMF internal package of the tooling component, as long as:
- the oAW team has no objections, as it’s
based on their work
- we migrate to M2T version asap (Artem to
work with oAW/M2T on contributing his modifications)
- it has minimal impact on the build/packaging/usage
of GMF
Thanks,
Rich
On 8/22/06 1:02 PM, "Artem Tikhomirov" <Artem.Tikhomirov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ed,
Let me question the 'proper process' term :) What's wrong with GMF having
template engine tailored for its own needs? If there was an engine/project
already and I'd try to parallel it, that might be wrong. There's no project
yet, nor even the proposal is finished, let alone deliverables. To me,
it sounds like few months. Few months mean no chances for GMF 2.0 to use
it - there are certain changes we can't afford to make in M6, for example.
Delaying use of technology for a year just because later there *may* appear
'official' implementation doesn't sound as justification for 'improper'.
Moreover, switch to the 'official' implementation is the goal; intention
of the contribution is just to make it happen in 2.0 timeframe.
GMF team is not going to dedicate its efforts to work on template engine,
it's a mere tool for the team to solve some problems more efficiently.
The engine is mature enough for us to just use it.
Sandboxing activities might sound as a solution, though I doubt can be
done without severely affecting ongoing GMF work for (again) few months.
Reusing what is there in GMT is not an option because of ANTLR dependency
and few other third-party libraries (e.g. code formatting)
Best wishes,
Artem Tikhomirov
From: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ed Merks
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:26 PM
To: PMC members mailing list
Cc: voelter@xxxxxxx; Sven Efftinge; modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx;
modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [modeling-pmc] Contribution: template engine for
GMF
Artem,
Being terminally impatient, I can certainly relate to your desire
to take action now and not wait around for a bunch of administrative
delays. But that being said, the proper process here really
is to get this M2T proposal approved and then do this work within
the bounds of that project. Also keep in mind that any use
of LPG by any project still needs to be legal approved even though OCL
is already approved to use it; of course this will go much faster
since the due diligence is already complete. Could your activities
take place in a sandbox (i.e., not in public CVS) until this M2T
thing is approved? Or could you simply reuse what's in GMT
now until a syntax equivalent version of it is available from M2T?
Sven and Paul,
Do you guys have an ETA for when the M2T proposal will be ready to
submit to the EMO? (The MDT proposal has already been submitted.)
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
"Artem Tikhomirov" <Artem.Tikhomirov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/22/2006 11:07 AM
Please
respond to
PMC members mailing list <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sven Efftinge <sven@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
voelter@xxxxxxx
[modeling-pmc] Contribution: template
engine for GMF
Hello,
I'm writing to inform the PMC about intent to provide significant
code contribution to one of Modeling projects, namely GMF. The contribution
is template engine, to be used along with JET engine, which is the
only template engine used in GMF now.
This new template engine is based on Xpand template engine which
is part of openArchitectureWare framework, GMT project (http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/oaw).
It's stripped-down version of the framework, with pieces relevant
and essential only for code generation left. All dependencies from
3rd party libraries were removed and the only one left - parser/grammar
framework (ANTLR 2.7), has been replaced with LPG library (one EMFT
uses for OCL). Rest of the original code is licensed under EPL.
Xpand approach to code generation is different from JET's and proved
to be much more convenient for some tasks we face with GMF templates.
Also, one of initial plan items for GMF states support for flexible
method of generation (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=114207),
thus new engine helps both GMF developers and GMF users to express
their 'textual' intentions with a language they feel most suitable.
oAW framework and Xpand in particular are being considered as initial
contributions to Model to Text project. Also, M2T project might have
support to switch template engines. However, project set up and first
deliveries are points in distant future (months), and that just means
"no" for GMF 2.0. Using GMF-owned component allows us to start
using new engine soon. Syntax of the new engine is almost identical
to that of original, and there won't be a problem to switch to M2T
deliveries once they are out. Note, however, that proposed contribution
in not kind of 'throw away' stuff, pieces of it might find their
way into M2T contributions (e.g. LPG grammars, test cases, patches
and improvements)
Size of the contribution is about 10KLOC of handwritten code plus
few grammar definitions and LPG generated code. Contribution is thoroughly
covered with unit tests (200+).
I'll need PMC approval to proceed with contribution questionnaire
(http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
and http://www.eclipse.org/legal/ContributionQuestionnairePart1-v1.0.php).
Please let me know your opinion and feel free to ask any question
about the contribution. Thank you!
Best wishes,
Artem Tikhomirov
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
--
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc