[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [modeling-pmc] Wish to take over MXF, Re: MXF Creation Review results
|
Philipp,
Comments below.
On 10/01/2012 10:22 AM, Philipp W. Kutter | Montages AG wrote:
Dear Ed M.
I don't imagine what you're planning fits exactly the scope that's
been spelled out.
Actually, we like quite the original scope of MXF.
I'll want to understand what concretely you have that fits this general
scope verses what's specifically focused on OCL.
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...
I would be open to this, and actually, while I payed Alex Igdalov to
work on XOCL for over a year, I told him to contribute as much to the
OCL project, as the OCL project will welcome.
At the moment, we have good productive discussions with the OCL
project, how to support the stable ECore targeted implementation
without bringing in danger the new more OMG compliant Pivot
implementation. Bringing any new aspects into this project, would be
too much. OCL has lots of challenges ahead.
This divide between the pivot-model-based and the older
more-specifically-targeted implementation concerns me.
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.
As described in the original MXF proposal, MXF is about supporting
different ways to make ECore models executable. It is perfectly ok,
that a specific way such as XCore is part of the EMF itself, but there
should be a place for the other ways of making ECore executable.
Those places can be where the execution languages themselves are defined.
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.
I agree, this is a good way too. Exactly for that reason rather than
sending the mail our right now to the PMC, I will discuss with a few
people from the Architectural Council what makes sense.
They're likely to have zero insight into any of these issues, other than
other members who are also PMC members. In the end, the Modeling PMC
has to agree to host the project.
I will certainly get back to you, and Ed W. and other people from the
Eclipse and OMG communities as well, before getting into this again.
We may as well try to contribute it to an active project, which
started to use OCL Annotations heavily: GMF Tooling. This would be in
line with your proposal to support active projects, rather than
starting new ones.
Yes.
Regards and thanks for the imput, Philipp
