Hi
I'm looking forward to a presentation of XOCL, as part of the joint
Eclipse/OMG symposium just before EclipseCon, as a chance to try to
understand what XOCL is really about. I've seen the "Montages AG -
Business Modelling Practice and Innovations" slides on which there
is a nice two dimensional editor for model instances, but beyond
that it was not clear to me what was new in comparison to what has
happened in parallel. Discussions on OCL Analysis have provided some
strong motivation for promoting the OCL Impact Analyzer from
examples in the Juno release, so that an independent development can
be replaced by a 'standard' one.
'Model Transformation Framework' is a wonderful term that can mean
whatever you want. When the original MXF was proposed I was
enthused, until I read the proposal detail and found that it was
nothing like what I was hoping for. I am sure that the project name
can be reused for a variety of purposes, but I think it is unfair to
burden any new project with the first couple of years of misleading
history.
In the meantime, as Ed Merks mentioned, Xcore/Xbase provides an
extended Ecore framework. With the advent of direct OCL 2 Java code
generation for the dispatch table based OCL Virtual Machine, the OCL
VM forms the root of another model transformation framework that can
be extended to support QVT and other approaches.
"From our side we will contribute one MXF framework called XOCL,
which is simply a set of standardized OCL annotations for ECore
models. This is, as Ed Merks mentions simply a usage of existing
stuff, not much new. "
This suggests that the new project is more like a library than a
tool. However the slides introduce both MCore and XOCL.
Unfortunately, as with many PPTs, it is difficult to grasp quite
what is going on without the presenter's words and pace. MCore
appears to be much more than a library; is it part of the
contribution?
The slides conclude with "MCore maps back to ECore + OCL (XOCL) and
can be considered as a simplification of modeling with ECore and
OCL". I would like to understand how this compares with the
OCLinEcore editor and its underlying use of Delegates that were
probably not available when the XOCL work was started.
I welcome anything that adds to the capabilities of modeling and OCL
in particular, especially anything that adds manpower, however I
think the alignment with current projects needs to be clarified and
a clear scope and name for a new project identified. Perhaps a
meeting at EclipseCon may be helpful.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 10/01/2012 07:17, Ed Merks wrote:
Philipp,
I don't imagine what you're planning fits exactly the scope that's
been spelled out. Certainly things have evolved, as you know,
since that scope for MXF was written, i.e., the introduction of
delegates for operations, constraints, and derived features in
EMF. The combination of these things allow behavioral aspects to
be defined directly in the Ecore model in an extensible way that
supports languages like OCL. I'd rather see things like XOCL be
part of the OCL project than to revivew a stillborn cross cutting
project. Better the OCL project diversify...
The new Xcore work is also about model execution (for Ecore), to
some extent, but I'd rather keep that as part of the EMF project,
not move it to a cross cutting project.
I'm not sure how the other PMC members feel about this. In
general we have a large number of dead project that need cleaning
up. Personally, in the future, I'd rather see more life injected
into projects that are currently alive.
Regards,
Ed
On 10/01/2012 6:50 AM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG wrote:
Dear Wayne.
Thanks for the clear directions, we will follow them.
I will start by discussing with prospective Architecture Council
mentors, for the topic at hand and then follow their advice.
Where is the list of the Architecture Council members, and which
projects they already mentor?
Regards, Philipp
On 09.01.2012 20:15, Wayne Beaton wrote:
It seems that by not speaking, the project has spoken. Or
something to that effect.
Now it's in the Modeling PMC's hands. With their unanimous
consent, we can change the project lead and committers. The
easiest thing to do is to replace the project lead and have
the new lead retire the existing committers and nominate the
replacement committers via the portal.
The Modeling PMC has to have a transparent discussion about
this. This discussion--which can be initiated by anyone
(either a member of the PMC, or somebody like Philipp)--should
include a few words stating that the project team has become
unresponsive and that another party has stepped forward to
take the helm. The discussion should include some indication
of confidence that the new project team is ready for the
responsibility in terms of understanding the EDP, working in
open source, etc. followed by a minimum of three +1s and no
-1s from the PMC.
My records show that the project is in incubation, but has no
mentors assigned. As part of this reassignment, I'd like to
see at least one Architecture Council mentor identified for
the project.
Thanks,
Wayne
On 01/05/2012 11:44 AM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG wrote:
Agree 100%
As you wrote on 26.4. that you will check with them the
status, I assumed, that the fact that the project is
unresponsive is already here.
How long do we want to wait?
mxf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
should reach the original people, no? Hello: anyone out
there???
Regards, Philipp
On 05.01.2012 15:58, Wayne Beaton wrote:
How does the existing project team feel about
this?
The easiest way to proceed is for the existing project
team to accept your XOCL contribution, move it into the IP
process, and initiate committer elections for the new
developers (citing the contribution as the required
demonstration of merit). Once on board, you can nominate
and elect a new project lead. That lead can retire the
inactive committers. The existing project lead can retire
by sending me a note.
That's the ideal.
If the project team is unresponsive, the Modeling PMC
can--after transparent discussion and unanimous
consent--decide to replace the project lead and
committers.
Make sense?
Wayne
On 01/05/2012 09:03 AM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG
wrote:
Dear Wayne.
I have not seen anything since April now. I assume thus
that the project will be either closed, or should be
taken over from another party.
In the meantime we increased activities on our own model
execution framework, and we definitively would like to
take over the project. I cc'd their mail list to see any
reaction from the original people.
The scope of the project needs not be changed, as they
positioned it as an open project, allowing to welcome
all MXF, not only the original proposed one. Thus we
will be open for the original contributions, and others
coming from the TopcaseD area (see discussion on mail
list).
In additon to the original scope, we will much more be
focused on project collaboration with other Modeling
projects, mainly those implementing OMG standards, such
as ECore, OCL, QVTO, Acceleo, and DI from TopcaseD. Here
the points we will bring to the scene:
- ECore will be the basis for all metamodels, such that
other modeling projects for persistence (such as CDO)
and different ways to express syntax (visual, textual,
tree/table) can be added easily
- Reuse of _expression_ languages of other projects (OCL,
imperative extension of OCL from QVTO, and newer ones
like XBase)
We especially intend to use the project to make sure
that topics such as dynamic/static binding of operation
calls, overriding/overloading, multiple inheritance are
solved the same way as in ECore/Java. (we filed
Bugzillas for this topic in the OCL project, which where
already partially fixed)
From our side we will contribute one MXF framework
called XOCL, which is simply a set of standardized OCL
annotations for ECore models. This is, as Ed Merks
mentions simply a usage of existing stuff, not much new.
Michael Golubev will bring the knowledge to the scene,
how to do the builds and will help me to follow all the
Eclipse processes. He is the component lead for GMF
Tooling and UML2 Tools.
Thus: there needs nothing to be added to the original
plan.
Please let us know how to proceed.
Regards,
Philipp
On 26.04.2011 14:54, Wayne Beaton wrote:
Hi Philipp./
The project appears to be dead on arrival :-)
I will check with the PMC and project founders to see
what their plans
are. Hopefully you'll see some activity from the
project.
Wayne
On 04/26/2011 05:16 AM, Philipp W. Kutter wrote:
Dear Anne.
Has there been any news since 7.4.2009?
I have neither seen the Eclipse page, nor the
initial code contribution.
Any input welcome. I will as well try to contact the
founders of the
project as soon as I find time.
Regards,
Philipp
Am 07.04.2009 18:47, schrieb Anne Jacko:
Hello all,
Since there has *not* been a request from a member
of the Eclipse
community to hold this review on a conference
call, there will be no
Review Call tomorrow (April 8, 2009).
The EMO has declared this review to be successful
based on the review
docuware and on community feedback.
Congratulations to the MXF team on
their successful review.
Please contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx
with any questions. Thanks.
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc
No virus
found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4732 - Release Date:
01/09/12
|
