Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [modeling-pmc] feedback on GMT web site



As discussed several times before, here again my answers:




From: jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:jbezivin@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jean Bezivin
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 5:46 AM
To: PMC members mailing list
Cc: Markus Voelter; Bernd Kolb
Subject: Re: [modeling-pmc] feedback on GMT web site


Bernd, Markus & oAW folks,


Could you provide the following information:


When the oAW migration process will be finished,

where will be located the various oAW contributions

in terms of project and components?


oAW is willing to donate the following to the Eclipse Community. This process is partly completed:

Workflow -> EMFT/MWE

Xpand/Xtend/Recipe/…  -> M2T/Xpand,Shared,Common

Xtext -> TMF to be created, see our proposal!



Who are the committers associated to each contribution (project/component)?

Committers are

                Markus Voelter,

Sven Efftinge,

Peter Friese,

Karsten Thoms,

 Arno Haase,

Clemens Kadura,

Bernd Kolb.

Maybe this list is not complete



When will this migration be finished?

MWE: done

Xpand & co: within the next few weeks, sorry I cannot be more precise on that!

Xtext: Mid-term, the project first has to be created


I am particularly interested by the impact of these on GMT.


One of the problems we are having in GMT is to provide a clear

focus and short description for each of the component of the project.

This is not presently the case  and we need to move rapidly in this direction.

oAW has been never different to what we provide today. Not since we joined GMT.

Regarding the short description: We provide exactly this on

And BTW: I think we are not the only component in GMT with this kind of focus, are we???


The information I would like to have, related to GMT is:


1. Do you intend, at the end of the migration process,

to keep a specific component within GMT?


2. What will be its name?


3. What will be its precise focus?

(by focus I mean some sentences describing precisely the goal of the component)


When defining the focus, bear in mind that GMT is defined as the "research incubator for 

the Eclipse Modeling Project".


What you are telling me is that there is no room for oAW (and I am not talking about the brand, but about the content) in GMT, right?

If that is the case, I think it would be really sad. If that is your decision we have to live with that. Just as a remark: Everything we now provide to the Eclipse community started as a playground in oAW and evolved from there. There are several examples of stuff we created and later deleted it again. Most of the things have been driven by one person at the beginning. What we need is a kind of sandbox where we can experiment with different things and evolve them from there. To us, oAW (or whatever you’d like to call it) is such a sandbox. However the focus is still limited:

Basically we have 2 topics:

Integration – E.g. how to integrate a model validation language with GMF or how to run a MWE from a specific modeling tool

Improvements/Research – At the moment e.g. we are having a look at MD-PLE. This results in improvements in MWE, Xpand and Xtend. And maybe someday in the future we can provide a new project for EMP with tools on top.


The alternative would be to create a component for each new topic we’d like to investigate. This means writing a proposal, voting for it, creating a cvs module for it, adding committers to it… This takes an awful lot of time as you know. Meanwhile we cannot do anything useful. >From our point of view, this is not the way to go, at least for us. It is ok whenever we have something mature enough, but in the early stages, it is not feasible.

If the EMP/GMT is not interested in such a component we have to find another way.






Thanks and Best regards,







On 10/19/07, Bernd Kolb <b.kolb@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


That is exactly what we are doing at the moment. As described in the
previous mail, we are splitting oAW over several projects in EMP. Once we
are finished oAW will be a distribution outside eclipse. As you maybe
noticed documentation and downloads already moved to Eclipse a while ago.
And as our CQs finally make good progress we are able to move our code into
the different EMP projects. So we are definitely willing and we do our best
to achieve this ASAP. As I said, MWE has no pointers to oAW anymore (not in
the code, not on the Wiki, not in the documentation...) and the same will be
true for Xpand in the next few weeks.
The main reason for the pointer to the website has been the forum where we
try to help the community. For the same reasons the EMFT newsgroup is still
in Technology we haven't moved it to Eclipse yet. (It would be hard for
people to find old items). Nevertheless, we are answering the questions in
the EMP-newsgroups as well! But for sure, we can remove the link. I
personally do not care.

Best regards,


Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd Kolb

(Beratung & Coaching)
Bernd Kolb
Franz-Marc Str. 35
89520 Heidenheim

Mobil: 0163/7321605

-----Original Message-----
From: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Merks
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:43 PM
To: PMC members mailing list
Cc: 'Markus Voelter'; modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx;
'ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx, PMC members mailing list'
Subject: RE: [modeling-pmc] feedback on GMT web site


By the same token, EMF started at but you won't find
signs of that.   The E in EMF even stood for e-tools.  But when we moved it
to Eclipse, we stripped all that is IBM from it, except for the copyrights.
I think that's very important.  Even if oAW is not a big corporate brand,
it at least gives the appearance of commercial interests being involved.
After all, folks do consulting under this brand.  And of course we greatly
value your contributions.  After all, GMF is making good use of Xpand!
It's the individuals making the contributions that we'd like to recognize;
their associated entities should play a secondary role at best.  I'd like
to see Eclipse provide some type of "list of credits under help" where
contributors, committers, and their sponsoring affiliations could be
advertised.  I think that would be the appropriate place for non-Eclipse
bands to appear.   I think the oAW brand is only appropriate as an external
distro, like MyEclipse...

Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)

            "Bernd Kolb"
            de>                                                        To
            Sent by:                  "'Richard Gronback'"
            modeling-pmc-boun         <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
            ces@xxxxxxxxxxx           "'Ian Skerrett'"
                                      "'ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx ,
            10/19/2007 02:27          PMC members mailing list'"
            PM                        <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
                                      "'Markus Voelter'"
            Please respond to                                          cc
               PMC members
              mailing list                                        Subject
            <modeling-pmc@ecl         RE: [modeling-pmc] feedback on GMT
      >             web site

Ian, Rich, Ed, Jean

openArchitectureWare has been a project which has started independent of
Eclipse and has been integrated into GMT at some point. Hence it does have
its own brand and a quite large community including a webpage with a forum
on it. Just to clarify, oAW is driven by individuals, not by a company.
of the developers are not paid for what they do to oAW, at least not
directly. It is one of the purposes of GMT to provide a way of integrating
promising new or existing projects into the Eclipse universe.

However, we are aware that for openArchitectureWare this is a temporary
state: at the moment we are in the process of splitting oAW into several
pieces that will end up in various Eclipse Modeling project, dropping the
openArchitectureWare name in the process.

For example, the process has been finished for the Modeling Workflow Engine
(MWE) which can now be found in EMFT and is being removed from
openArchitectureWare. If you have a look at the code and the documentation
you?ll find no references to openArchitectureWare anymore. The same will be
true for our Xpand contribution to the model-to-text component; it is
currently in the process of being migrated to M2T.

After we finished this process, openArchitectureWare will be much less
important. Our goal is to keep the "brand" oAW as a kind of "distribution"
of well-cooperating Eclipse modeling components, combined with a set of
experimental modeling related tools. We hope to finish this process within
the next few weeks.

I'd just want to make one remark w/r/t the branding of components. I think
the modeling project is different from the rest of the Eclipse projects.
Here we have e.g. a project called Model-to-model. It contains several
languages (components), basically doing the same. It is ok to have these
different languages with the same functionality. However, it is important
show the user when he should/could use which component. Thus, in EMP
components are much more independent from each other than in all other
Eclipse projects. I think it is good here to have a little branding (within
a limited range, I agree) which gives these components an identity. And
helps the users to distinguish them

Best regards,


Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd Kolb

(Beratung & Coaching)
Bernd Kolb
Franz-Marc Str. 35
89520 Heidenheim

Mobil: 0163/7321605

From: Richard Gronback [mailto:richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 7:40 PM
To: Ian Skerrett; ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx, PMC members mailing list; Bernd
Kolb; Markus Voelter
Subject: Re: [modeling-pmc] feedback on GMT web site

Thanks for the ATL observation, Ian. I was under the impression that our
?identity crisis? components were all within GMT. ATL has graduated from
GMT recently, as have several components of oAW, but I see they still have
reference to the ATLAS Group on their page. This should be removed, along
with other references such as the Acknowledgement section at the bottom of
this page: Of
course, the logos are not what you mean, right? We have lots of logos in
use within Modeling.

Until such time there is a policy for advertising external entities
(commercial, academic, or otherwise) on the website, I agree
that all references should be removed. As Ed mentioned, you won?t find
links to IBM or Borland on the EMF or GMF sites.

Regarding oAW, we have had discussions with them and decided the most
painless approach was to require they strip their oAW identity when
graduating to other modeling projects, also as Ed mentioned. The Xpand and
Workflow components are undergoing a namespace refactoring as they migrate,
and we?ll make sure there are no oAW on the M2T and EMFT websites. We?ll
certainly try to speed up this process.

Another timely topic is the recent announcement of the oAW 4.2 release ( and I don?t recall a release review
taking place for this component (or ever for GMT), and I see they are still
providing links to download from on their
download page. Hopefully, we can correct this ASAP.


On 10/19/07 1:12 PM, "Ian Skerrett" < ian.skerrett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I would suggest is that the components of GMT should not have a
logo/graphic and have a descriptive name not a nickname. I think this
go a long way to improving the situation. Btw, this goes for all the
modeling sub-projects, for instance

modeling-pmc mailing list

Jean Bézivin - ATLAS Group (INRIA & LINA) - University of Nantes - 2, rue de la Houssinière
44322 Nantes cedex 3 - France
tel. +33 2 51 12 58 13 - fax. +33 2 51 12 58 12 - cell.+33 6 14 32 22 36
- e.mail: Jean.Bezivin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Skype: jbezivin

Back to the top