Re: [modeling-pmc] Graphiti project proposal

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

Re: [modeling-pmc] Graphiti project proposal

From: Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:57:20 -0500
Delivered-to: modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/modeling-pmc>
List-help: <mailto:modeling-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc>, <mailto:modeling-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc>, <mailto:modeling-pmc-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Team,

To summarize from this morning's Modeling PMC Call:

The new Graphiti project belongs in the same umbrella project as GMF. This follows the current organization of the existing modeling projects.

The new top level umbrella project would contain:

Graphiti - lead: Michael Wenz
GMF Tooling - lead: Artem Tikhomirov
GMF Runtime - lead: Anthony Hunter
GMF Notational Metamodel - lead: Anthony Hunter

And Anthony agreed to lead the new top level umbrella project.

We want to add this new top level umbrella project to the Graphiti project proposal (or create a separate proposal for it).

First step is agreeing on a name, so I raised https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=303649 for the name discussion.

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613

Ed Merks ---2009/12/24 06:02:46 AM---Anthony,

From:	Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	PMC members mailing list <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	2009/12/24 06:02 AM
Subject:	Re: [modeling-pmc] Fwd: Graphiti project proposal

Anthony,

That sounds like a very sensible organizational approach.

Cheers,
Ed

Anthony Hunter wrote:

Hi Team,

I am sure we all can agree that this is a GMF Runtime. IBM donated its GMF Runtime to the modeling project in 2005, SAP is now offering their similar contribution to the community. The objective remains to find where this fits into the modeling project.

Everyone may not be aware that the GMF Tooling supports a second "GEF Runtime". This is a GEF only runtime that currently can be found in the experimental SDK download in the GEF project. It is a work in progress, but the foundation of a "second" runtime already exists.

The reason I am telling you this is that at a high level, the GMF project already supports multiple runtimes. In fact, if you look back to the original GMF project requirements, the goal was to support multiple runtimes.

At a high level, I see no problem bringing Graphiti was a third runtime as a subproject into the GMF project. We can split the current GMF Runtime into another GMF subproject. The GMF project, which currently has no subprojects, becomes GMF Tooling, GMF Runtime and Graphiti (and a fourth if we want to spin the experimental GEF runtime into a separate subproject).

Any comments?

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter

mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx

Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613

Ed Merks ---2009/12/19 05:41:33 AM---This looks very cool. It's of course very likely to cause confusion as yet another graphical modeling framework, but hey, the

From:	Ed Merks <ed.merks@xxxxxxxxx>
To:	PMC members mailing list <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc:	christian.brand@xxxxxxx, meinolf.block@xxxxxxx
Date:	2009/12/19 05:41 AM
Subject:	Re: [modeling-pmc] Fwd: Graphiti project proposal

This looks very cool. It's of course very likely to cause confusion as yet another graphical modeling framework, but hey, the modeling project is already rife with overlapping similar solutions so this will be yet another example of that. I agree with Cédric though that graphical modeling framework projects should exist within an umbrella project rather than be separate parallel projects right under Modeling, i.e., it should be handled just like what we've done with M2M and M2T. I'm not sure what to call that umbrella project and I suppose we'll need to follow various heavy-weight processes to make it happen...

Overall the document looks good, but the scope section is a little weak. Is objective == scope? Talking about what issues are not (initially) covered as part of the scope section doesn't make good sense either, i.e., are these issues in or out of scope? I'd say they are in scope but it might take a while to get to them.

The proposal mentions using EMF for the domain model, but I wonder if there will there be yet another command framework as part of these APIs.

Regards,
Ed

Cédric Brun wrote:

I'm wondering, wouldn't it be better to create Graphiti as a subproject of GMF, it's a Graphical Modeling Framework right ? and Moreover the proposal emphasis on the complementarity of both. My concern is that people will have a hard time to find their way in the numerous modeling technologies if it's not even "grouped" in a comprehensive way.. Cédric Anne Jacko a écrit :

Modeling PMC -- Apologies for not including you on the earlier email about the Graphiti proposal. Please review and comment. Thanks.

http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/graphiti/

Anne Jacko

emo@xxxxxxxxxxx

<mailto:emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Anne Jacko <

anne.jacko@xxxxxxxxxxx

<mailto:anne.jacko@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> *Date: *December 18, 2009 9:05:01 AM PST *To: *Mike Milinkovich <

mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx

<mailto:mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>