Re: [dtp-dev] Fw: about the DTP model change proposal for Catalog - plea

[rcernich@xxxxxxxxxx]

> Thank you for raising these as points to be considered for DTP.
> Another area too, which need to be factored in related to WTP to DTP
> migration. There will be a variant proposal which is focusing on
> current WTP adoption migrating to DTP, for an easy path of the
> migration as well as supporting the catalog object.

I agree that this is an important aspect.  However, I don't think the base
model should be affected by migration requirements unless absolutely
necessary.  My preference would be to provide a "migration kit" that could
be used by existing adopters.  This "kit" would be part of the DTP model
base project and would provide a customized model that can be used by
extenders that do not support catalogs (e.g. including NonCatalogDatabase
and NonCatalogSchema elements).

As for persisted models, I think we should consider using migration
mechanisms provided directly within EMF (e.g. element name mapping;
Database->NonCatalogDatabase).  We could also include a specialized
ExtendedMetaData implementation as part of this "kit."  This could serve as
a base type for more sophisticated, customized models.  (As an aside, I'm
curious as to why you wouldn't need to create one of these anyway, since
the namespace URI's of the base types have changed; or, at a minimum, use
an XML name to feature map.)

Rob