Hi,
First I also thought, that the Import option should remain, but seeing the figures Virendra sent in his emails I suddenly changed my mind.
System and library usually form a single unit for projects, and as we currently do not support FB versioning, in my opinion the following scenario can occur.
A developer imports an old system into a new 4diac project. Now, the FB library is the most recent one, but the application potentially has workarounds for bugged FBs or other assumptions
on the functionality of an FB which have changed over the years.
If there is a simple import function, the user would expect everything should work as expected from the old project.
If there is a manual process involved, like the suggested copying of files, users usually do not expect, that everything will work without intervention.
So from this point of perspective, I vote for removal without replacement.
Best regards,
Martin
--------------------------------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Martin Melik-Merkumians
Advanced Mechatronic Systems
Automation and Control Institute (ACIN)
TU Wien
DVR-Number: 0005886
Gusshausstr.
27-29, room CA-05-38
1040 Vienna, Austria
Phone: +43 (0)1 588 01 37688
Fax: +43 (0)1 588 01 937688
Email:
melik-merkumians@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.acin.tuwien.ac.at/
--------------------------------------------------
Von: 4diac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <4diac-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Im Auftrag von Virendra Ashiwal
Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. März 2020 21:45
An: 4diac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx; alois.zoitl@xxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [4diac-dev] Proposal: Remove IEC 61499 System Importer
1) In that case, we should have option for import--> system or 4diac Project (as attachment
"Options-for-importing.png")
2) In general, when importing a system to new 4diac project, how are we handling importing of libraries from that system? (as attachment "Handling-Library-while-importing.png")
Hi Thomas,
It is possible but i see the following issues with it:
- first of all it has quite some bugs (I think at least 3 are reported) that for quite some time nobody wanted to fix, for me this also means nobody needs or
uses it
- keeping it makes other code parts in 4diac IDE harder but this could be solved
- and finally for me the most important point: this importer confuses users. many use it to import 4diac IDE projects which most always leads to broken 4diac
IDE projects. Avoiding to make that mistake i would find important.
However while I'm writing here I got the idea that with the new project layout also the system importer needs (can) change. It could simply copy the system file
into an existing project. With that I think all existing bugs on the importer are obsolete and we would also not break any 4diac IDE projects.
Would this be a way? Although I must say I still prefere to delete it. It frees resources for more important stuff.
Cheers,
Alois
On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 19:30 +0100, Thomas I. Strasser wrote:
> Hi Alois,
>
> Thanks for your update. Even if it's possible to just copy the sys file into
> the workspace I would also keep the system importer (if possible) simply for
> usability.
>
> Regards
> Thomas
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:33 PM Alois Zoitl <alois.zoitl@xxxxxx>
wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > With the planned new Project layout (see Bug #558338 [1]) adding an existing IEC 61499 system file would be simply copying it into a 4diac IDE project.
> > Therefore it will make little sense to keep the IEC 61499 system importer. Especially as it has several issues and it would make other parts of the system file
> > handling code easier.
> >
> > How do you see this?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alois
> >
> > [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=558338
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 4diac-dev mailing list
> > 4diac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/4diac-dev
_______________________________________________
4diac-dev mailing list
4diac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/4diac-dev
