I agree with your vision, and I think that the repositories should be separate, between a Core "profile" and a Core "SA".
We juste have to find their names ....
Hi,
I agree with about no mention to SA. It made me think other thing, about the .sa resource. It must be not exist.
There is a fundamental question that needs one precise response too quickly:
“What is ESF?”
For me and for CEA members, ESF is not SA vision. ESF is a mixed of All4Tec and CEA expertise. ESF needs to be open for others too, if possible. But now, for pragmatism reasons,
for me, ESF is temporally under baseline of SA. In parallel, the new basis should be developed for ESF.
The other fundamental question, if you and All4Tec agree with the previously response, is:
“How do this?”
For example, the “…esf.core.metamodel » (from SA) current is not coherent with “…esf.core.profile” (ESF Core Profile, in working. It is the basis for the future of ESF).
For this reason, I proposed the repositories dedicated to the code from SA. But, I agree ESF-SA is not good.
We must think how coexist the two development in the same repository or not. Maybe the branches make the job.
Regards,
Yupanqui
Hi,
I agree that we should separate our repositories by 'feature' or domain, but I don't think that separate them for Safety Architect is the right decision. ESF is a product by itself, and we should not mention SA in it. We can however separate the 'core' provided
by SA from the 'core' provided by Papyrus, the thing is that the repo should be named by their function and not their origin. For example :
- ESF-MODELER : stores the core and common code for the graphical editors, e.g. ESF Core profile
- ESF-DOCUMENTS: stock the specifications, models, papers, demos, etc.
- ESF-INFRA : stores the core and common code from SA
- ESF-CONNECTOR: stores the “parsers” from SA
- ESF-TOOLS: stores the analyses tools from SA
Even if the name Modeler is may not be the best one... I think that is enough to allow us to evolve and add new analysis or representation.
Regards,
Jonathan
Le 10/03/2015 10:38, MUNOZ JULHO Yupanqui a écrit :
Hi,
In the last conversation we defined four repository:
- ESF-INFRA
- ESF-CONNECTOR
- ESF-TOOLS
- ESF-DOCUMENTS
After the new reflections about the ESF’s present (SA open source) and ESF’s future (new conception of the safety analyses and open to the new and external contributions + SA) I think that the SA codes should be in the
separated repository:
Proposition:
- ESF-INFRA: stores the core and common code, e.g. ESF Core profile
- ESF-DOCUMENTS: stock the specifications, models, papers, demos, etc.
- ESF-SA-INFRA : stores the core and common code from
SA
- ESF-SA-CONNECTOR: stores the “parsers” from
SA
- ESF-SA-TOOLS: stores the analyses tools from
SA
What is your opinion?
We can debate about this Thursday in the meeting.
Yupanqui
_______________________________________________
esf-dev mailing list
esf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://polarsys.org/mailman/listinfo/esf-dev
_______________________________________________
esf-dev mailing list
esf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://polarsys.org/mailman/listinfo/esf-dev
