Ed,
I could do tests/reviews.
I am hoping to have a closer look at what has to be done in the
analyzer and let you know if I could help with it in the middle of next
week.
As regards the branch, I
liked very much the implementation of the model-driven library approach
you did there. However, I am not sure it can substitute the old
codebase in Helios. Even if it becomes stable before M6 (API freeze) we
should remember about our downstream projects... I wouldn't merge it
with HEAD after M5 unless we provide patches for QVTO, etc...
Ed, how would you estimate
the time needed to make the branch stable (by 'stable' I mean a stable
interim state, e.g. with phase1 only)? Moreover, do you think it makes
sense to have a stable but a logically unfinished engine in this
release with pending breaking changes in the next release?
Regards,
- Alex.
Hi Alex
Yes. In so far as possible everything that could be defined by an
XXX.oclstdlib should be, so that just by changing to YYY.oclstdlib you
get a different configuration of behaviour. The most important change
is for lookup to search the generic library rather than the Ecore/UML
library.
Everything in the analysis field is part of 'phase 2' though I'm
beginning to suspect that 'phase 1' may stall without doing 'phase 2'
anyway since 'def' constraints must be added to the library by the
analyzer.
How much time do you have available?
Small amounts of time could help with tests/reviews.
More substantial time could help with perhaps 'phase 2'.
Beware: the branch is my development area. It is not equivalent in
quality to committed code. There is much still to do.
Ed
On 19/01/2010 13:41, Alexander Igdalov wrote:
Hi Ed,
Thanks for informing me.
I am now merging my patch for collections conformance to OclAny with the
Reflective Library branch. As I see it, there is conformance information in
the OCL.oclstdlib file, i.e. it is mentioned there that Collections conform
to OclAny. Still this information is not used in
AbstractTypeChecker.getRelationShip() and etc. Are you planning to update
the type checker so that it would use the library model rather than perform
by-hand conformance resolution like in getRelationship methods?
Cheers,
- Alex.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Willink [mailto:ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:23 PM
To: Alexander Igdalov
Subject: Reflective Library progress
Hi Alex
The UML tests now 'work' as well; 116 failures rather than 400.
I've added Status.txt at the foot of o.e.o to remind myself (tell you) what
needs to be done.
Ed