Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Re: About the last version of the Sphinx proposal
Raphael,

Thanks for contributing to the discussion, and providing such insightful context. I agree that the characterization of Papyrus in the Sphinx proposal can (and should) be improved to more accurately reflect the project's intent and its (future) relationship to Sphinx. I was hoping that would happen before the proposal was posted, but it's not too late to do so now.

I see both Papyrus and Sphinx working towards a similar goal, i.e., to gather the various modeling technologies at Eclipse into a cohesive, consumable whole. But each is taking a different approach, in my mind - Papyrus is from a top-down perspective (i.e., end-user consumable tool) whereas Sphinx is from a bottom-up perspective (i.e., common building blocks).

At the outset (as became apparent at the Summit), there is, naturally, some overlap between the two; indeed, I think it remains to be seen where exactly the dividing line will eventually end up, i.e., where Sphinx ends and Papyrus begins within a tooling stack. Ultimately, however, I still see Papyrus as an (the) fully integrated modeling environment (e.g., the "JDT" of modeling, if you will) whereas I see Sphinx as a possible (future) foundation on which to base it (e.g., the "workbench" of modeling).

As co-leads of this proposed new project, I trust that Sebastien and Stephan can work together to come up with wording that is acceptable to all parties involved. Of course, I am willing to help in any way that I can. Personally, I'm less worried about the words (since talk is cheap) and more about taking the necessary steps to ensure that these efforts are suitably aligned, to the benefit the modeling community at large.

Cheers,

Kenn

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Raphael FAUDOU <raphael.faudou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Kenn,
thanks for this clarification.
As discussions are now open, I would like to start some thread about the vision of MDT Papyrus in this last version of the Sphinx proposal.

On the last open discussion about the position of MDT papyrus in the modeling landscape (Eclipse Summit Europe), we (Papyrus team) had presented our vision of MDT Papyrus as "the advent of an open source IME at Eclipse". A the BOF session, there was some general agreement that MDT Papyrus backbone could be considered as one of the pillars of this IME and Christian Meier from UBS had drawn the "full picture" in which we could see MDT Papyrus as the "modeling editor" component of this platform. We have explained that the backbone is independant of UML and is already able to support any modeling editor including profile-based and DSL-based editors (see slide 15 of the ESE 2009 presentation - "advent of an open source IME at Eclipse" - if some of you do not remember or were not present)

So, what happened in 4 months behind the scene?
How did this presentation of MDT Papyrus backbone as an open platform to support any modeling editor could evolve to the following description: "Papyrus backbone which provides basic facilities required for UML2 editors (see Code contributions for detail)" ?
Kenn,  do you really agree with this description? do you really think that MDT Papyrus backbone is limited to basic facilities for (only) UML2 editors?
It is probably considered as a simple bad rephrasing but it changes a lot the position of MDT papyrus and could provide confusion within the modeling community.

On next sentence I read "The rest of the Papyrus project is intended to be migrated to Sphinx and thereby become a consumer of it".
Personnaly I never heard about that and never stated such an intention and I know that is not the position of CEA too. So it looks like some kind of "shortcut" or "interpretation" of private talks. Perhaps it can make sense that Papyrus integrates to Sphinx later but we are very far from taking such a decision because we first have to understand clearly the Sphinx architecture and the complements with MDT Papyrus, which is not the case for now.

So could you please update the proposal to rephrase Papyrus description and make it more conformant to the last presentation in Stuttgart?
Thanks a lot.

After those modifications I and other papyrus members will be happy to start some more interesting discussions about overlap, alignement and complements in architecture and technologies between Sphinx and MDT papyrus.

Cheers
Raphaël

Kenn Hussey a écrit :
Guys,

Ultimately, a project proposal is not considered final until the project creation review, and as Stephan has pointed out, it's quite natural (and expected!) for it to change once posted. I suspect the Foundation was "too fast" in publishing the proposal because it is in all of our better interests for discussions to start taking place in the open instead of "behind closed doors" - that is the Eclipse Way. The result of public participation in the shaping of this proposal can only mean better things for the project and for all our individual interests in participating in it...

Cheers,

Kenn

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Stephan Eberle <stephan.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sébastien,

Comments below:

Le 05/02/2010 15:01, GERARD Sebastien 166342 a écrit :

Hi Stephan,

 

The version of the sphinx proposal that was uploaded on the Eclipse web site as a project proposal (http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/sphinx/) is not in line with the content of the last proposal I sent you last Wednesday. I cc this document to this email as a reminder.

I think that "not in line" is not justified. The published version is slightly different, yes, but as stated in my e-mail which I sent to you upon completion of step 1 (see attachment), these differences consist of correction of spell errors and some rephrasings but don't change the content of the version we have commonly agreed upon in any significant way.

According to what we said last Wednesday, the process for finalizing the proposal was:

1 – you should have sent me two versions of this proposal integrating my comments and the one of Cedric: 1 short version that was intended to be the official proposal, and a longest (the one cc this email and possibly modified by you).

Which I've done by 2010-02-04 morning CET, see attachment.

2 – then I sho this shuld have reviewedortest version and then say if I am ok or if I need some final modifications.

Which I was waiting for since completion of step 1.

 

But you have skipped this second stage and then you did not give me any time to agree on the final version post on the Eclipse web site and you did not give the time to consult the Papyrus team to have their final agreement also!

No, by all honesty, I have never given green light for the publication of the proposal.

What I've done is that I've asked Wayne at Eclipse Foundation to make the latest version of the proposal available under a hidden link at Eclipse.org (see attachment). It is quite normal to do that and even stated like this in the Eclipse Development Process (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Pre-Proposal_Phase).

Then Wayne asked to you and me if anyone has still any change requests (see attachment). Me, still waiting for your reaction in response to completion of step 1 hadn't any, and you have also not replied to Wayne.

Personally, I didn't worry much about, because I was expecting that Wayne would wait for an explicit go from both of us before moving forward. What happened instead is that Eclipse Foundation has turned the proposal public without waiting for anymore feedback.

That's what happened, and I was as surprised as you when I saw that this morning. I therefore have to say that it was Eclipse Foundation who has been a little bit too fast here.

And again, I definitely didn't meant it to take this way.

 

For that reason, I ask you to ask Eclipse to withdraw the current version of the proposal from the Eclipse web site and then to send me the version of the doc used for the publication. It will give a chance to me and the Papyrus team to provide our comments and agreement.

Given that the differences between the version we have agreed upon and the published one are MINOR with regard to the content, I strongly believe that it would be to our all's disadvantage if we overreacted by withdrawing the proposal under the eyes of the whole Eclipse community.

Really, we have been so close to starting off a really good collaboration, why throwing all this away now because of a few spell errors and a couple of rephrasings?

So, what I suggest is that we simply complete step 2 and then send an updated version of the proposal to Eclipse Foundation in case that this should be necessary. Then this update would silently replace the current version and that's it.

This is btw. absolutely not unusual, because an Eclipse project proposal is not necessarily meant to stay unchanged but can be altered during the whole proposal phase (see http://www.eclipse.org/projects/dev_process/development_process.php#6_2_2_Proposal for details).

Thanks,

Stephan

 

Thanks,

Best… Sébastien.

 

 

 

 

Dr. Sébastien Gérard

Head of MDD for DRES research project

CEA LIST, Laboratoire d’Ingénierie dirigée par les modèles pour les Systèmes Embarqués (LISE)

Boîte courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE

CEDEX, F-91191 France

Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95

Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org

http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus

 

Before printing, think about the environment

 


--

Dr. Stephan EBERLE

----------------------------------------------------------------

Product Development Manager

 

16-18 rue du Dôme

92100 Boulogne-Billancourt, FRANCE

 

Phone : +33 (0)1.73.54.00.30

Fax : +33 (0)1.73.54.00.32

Mobile : +33 (0)6.64.18.39.10

 

E-mail : stephan.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxx

www : http://www.geensys.com

----------------------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list

mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev

--

Image Signature IOC Raphaël FAUDOU
 Responsable cellule Innovation / bureau méthodes
Head of Innovation & Method Definition
Embedded systems & critical systems
Atos Origin

Tel     : +33 (0)5 34 36 32 89
Tel     : +33 (0)6 10 53 50 44
Mail   : raphael.faudou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Atos Origin
6, Impasse Alice Guy
BP 43045
31024 Toulouse Cedex 3, France

P Avant d'imprimer cet e-mail, pensez à l'environnement. Ce message et les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et réservés à l'usage exclusif de ses destinataires. Il peut également être protégé par le secret professionnel. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci d'en avertir immédiatement l'expéditeur et de le détruire. L'intégrité du message ne pouvant être assurée sur Internet, la responsabilité du groupe Atos Origin ne pourra être recherchée quant au contenu de ce message. Bien que les meilleurs efforts soient faits pour maintenir cette transmission exempte de tout virus, l'expéditeur ne donne aucune garantie à cet égard et sa responsabilité ne saurait être recherchée pour tout dommage résultant d'un virus transmis.
P Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail. This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos Origin group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted.


_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev


Back to the top