|
Re: M2M choice [message #609 is a reply to message #583] |
Wed, 15 November 2006 23:06 |
Frédéric Jouault Messages: 572 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hello Etienne,
> Today, there are several transformation languages, and I know many
> people who prefer QVT, many people who prefer ATL, and many people who
> prefer other transformation systems.
> I hope the goal of M2M project is not to provide an utopian unique
> language but to provide a really diversity to keep choice of what syntax
> /engine I prefer.
The goal of M2M is definitely not to impose a unique model
transformation approach on users.
As stated in the proposal, the M2M project will initially offer three
different transformation engines: ATL, procedural QVT, and declarative
QVT. You can see that even this initial organization already offers a
choice.
Moreover, the architecture of M2M is based on a transformation
infrastructure, which purpose is to enable several engines and languages
to coexist. The initial set of engines will be used to validate this
infrastructure, on which other engines will be plugged later.
One possible M2M extension scenario is illustrated by ATL history:
- a transformation engine starts as a GMT (incubator) project,
- it matures within GMT: the tool evolves, and a community is created,
- the engine then migrates to M2M.
Of course, many other possibilities exist. For instance, the new engine
may mature outside of Eclipse before being contributed to M2M.
I understand your concern and I hope you are now reassured.
Please feel free to ask for additional clarifications if needed.
> Today, we already use 2 different transformation languages : ATL and our
> own language. I hope M2M will help us to have softwares built on the top
> of several languages.
Yes. M2M will help you to do this. Even if your language is not
officially part of M2M, it will be possible to plug it on the
infrastructure so that it can interoperate with the other languages.
> Just another notice : I think M2M and M2T teams must works together to
> share some architectural and API choices.
> We have already some users who use ATL and Acceleo to provide
> transformation and source code generation, and I hope M2T and M2M will
> allow better integration between EMP projects.
I do agree with you, and would even broaden this consideration to every
component of the Eclipse Modeling Project.
We will take this remark into account and provide a solution to this
interoperability issue.
Best regards,
Frédéric Jouault
Proposed M2M Project Lead
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04465 seconds