[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Specification of the single file management
|
Thibault,
As Raphael has suggested, we should probably move this discussion to the wiki. In the meantime, here are my answers to your questions:
- if we want to support arbitrary repositories (e.g. CVS vs. CDO, etc.) transparently, we may need an "internal" storage structure/format that is different from the source/storage format
I don't really get this point. Does this mean we should have a (de)serialization mechanism before store our model in repositories ?
KH > Sorry for being vague here. What I was trying to say was that, depending on the nature of the repository, there may be a need for an internal (file-based) serialization which is different from the "native" format of the repository. In the case of CDO, for example, we may want/need to use a file-based storage mechanism to work against, for example, in cases where there is no connectivity to the repository.
- we should also consider "backup" resources, e.g. so that we can support things like autosave
KH > It would be suitable, although depending on the autosave interval, the user may prefer not to overwrite the original resource (and hence create a "change" in the eyes of the local history) every time the resource is saved.
However we could add a mechanism to perform an autosave that user can configure through preferences.
We propose to regroup all the content in a single file (EMF also deals with it really well). We prototyped both solutions, and it ends up that the single file seems to be the best solution. We certainly missed some impacts / functionnalities.
Can you give us some arguments why having all the content in a single file is not a good solution ?
KH > Having all content in a single file makes it impossible (for example) for more than one diagram, each from a different "model" or "project" to reference a given semantic element.
Cheers,
Kenn
2009/10/19 Thibault LANDRE
<thibault.landre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Kenn,
thanks for your comments.
Kenn Hussey a écrit :
Thibault,
This is a great starting point. A couple of comments/observations:
- we should get into the habit of using the term "resource" rather than "file" because, ultimately, it shouldn't matter (to the tool) where/how the content of a model/diagram is stored
You are right. I'll fix it
- I think the requirement to support containment proxies (control/uncontrol actions) necessarily means that more than one physical resource will make up a model
I agree. Each controlled model corresponds to a physical resource.
- just because compare/merge tooling doesn't support comparison of binary resources out of the box doesn't mean we should exclude it as a native serialization format, at least in my mind
In fact, it is possible to compare zip file. See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=273229
I have run a quick test on my environment and it seems to working fine (Text Compare, EMF Compare...).
However it is not possible to do any merge.
But maybe we shouldn't allow user to merge their models. The *.emf, *.notation, *.di are dependants. I think, merging will lead to more issues than it solves. Advanced users could still unzip/zip their binary resources to merge them.
- if we want to support arbitrary repositories (e.g. CVS vs. CDO, etc.) transparently, we may need an "internal" storage structure/format that is different from the source/storage format
I don't really get this point. Does this mean we should have a (de)serialization mechanism before store our model in repositories ?
- we should also consider "backup" resources, e.g. so that we can support things like autosave
Is the Local History not suited here ?
However we could add a mechanism to perform an autosave that user can configure through preferences.
We propose to regroup all the content in a single file (EMF also deals with it really well). We prototyped both solutions, and it ends up that the single file seems to be the best solution. We certainly missed some impacts / functionnalities.
Can you give us some arguments why having all the content in a single file is not a good solution ?
To be clear, we are not "pro single file" or "pro zip". We would like to find the best solution to implement this key functionnality as it will be very difficult to modify our choice in the future.
We have not commited (we could have to) the patch for this reason.
By the way, has anyone tested the patch proposed ?
Regards,
Thibault
Cheers,
Kenn
2009/10/19 Thibault LANDRE <thibault.landre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:thibault.landre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Hi all,
You will find attached a proposed specification for the management
of resources in Papyrus.
Any remarks / comments is welcomed.
Regards,
Thibault
_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
