Hi Tristan,
Hiding the subprofiles hierarchy would be a very bad idea. This hierarchy has been introduced in those standards for purpose. The objective was actually to enable to apply those profiles in a scalable manner.
About which profiles to apply, it depends on your purpose, and it has to be defined in one methodology that drive you using the right set of extensions at the right moment.
Sébastien.
De : mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Mathieu Velten
Envoyé : vendredi 3 décembre 2010 15:24
À : tristan.faure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc : Papyrus Project list
Objet : Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Standard Profile
I still find very annoying and ugly to have to apply each sub-profile separately.
In my opinion this remark applies to SysML too : I usually don't know which subprofile to apply, and I don't see the benefit (as a user) of partitioning a coherent set of stereotypes into several not that useful sub profiles.
Easy example : on a BDD diagram I am creating a block, then I want to add a flow port, I need to apply PortAndFlows profile. The current way of dealing with that in Papyrus is "apply all the sub profiles of SysML" which is basically the same as having an unique SysML profile.
For me sub profiles look like a nice way to organize stereotypes when creating the profile, except that it interferes with the use of the profile because we need to apply each sub-profile separately.
Perhaps we should hide the sub profiles complexity in papyrus even more, by only showing the top SysML profile in the properties view when all the subprofiles are applied, and forbid the application of the top SysML profile if only a subset of this profile is applied.
here is an example of what I mean using the wizard to apply a profile :
Mathieu
Le 03/12/2010 11:56, GERARD Sebastien 166342 a écrit :
It is then possile to have a papyrus profile consisting of several sub profiles, just to organize this latter. Proposal then should be to have:
org.eclipse.papyrus.utils.profile containing all Papyrus related sub profiles.
I disagree with you on this one.
I don't really see the point of proposing one profile by specific papyrus feature which need a profile.
My wish is to have a standard papyrus profile where we can add stereotypes when we need them. That's why I named the profile Papyrus and the stereotype documentation.
If my goal is to have a specific profile for the documentation I can just embed the profile in the doc plugin.
I don't think having one profile for each (very) small stereotype like this one is a good idea.
Mathieu
Le 03/12/2010 11:32, GERARD Sebastien 166342 a écrit :
I would propose to have dedicated papyrus profile of specific purpose. If we need additional profiles for other concerns, we could design related specific profiles.
Hi I agree with the remi's remark.
But do we expect for this profile to only manage documentation ?
If no I think we should prefer a name more "generic" than documentation
What is your opinion ?
Tristan
Le 03/12/2010 11:27, GERARD Sebastien 166342 a écrit :
+1
I propose: org.eclipse.papyrus.documentation.profile
-----Message d'origine-----
De : mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de SCHNEKENBURGER Remi 211865
Envoyé : vendredi 3 décembre 2010 11:26
À : Papyrus Project list
Objet : Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Standard Profile
Hi,
I would prefer different names for the various elements:
- the plugin is a bundle that proposes some documentation profile. For me, 'org.eclipse.papyrus.uml.profile' sounds like a plugin that handles UML profiles for Papyrus. Why not '{oep}.documentation.profile' for example? Or perhaps your goal is to propose some other extensions to this profile, not related to documentation?- the profile itself is a profile defining a language for documentation: Why not 'Documentation' instead of 'Papyrus'?
Otherwise, I do agree with this idea ;-)
Regards,
Rémi
-----Message d'origine-----
De : mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de GERARD Sebastien 166342
Envoyé : vendredi 3 décembre 2010 11:15
À : Papyrus Project list
Objet : Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] Standard Profile
Hi Mathieu,
I second this idea. One question on the Papyrus Documentation Profile: about the properties of the Documentation stereotype, there is currently the author property. Do you think adding additional properties, such as affiliation, date, ... ?
Thanks,
Cheers... Sébastie,.
-----Message d'origine-----
De : mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mdt-papyrus.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Mathieu Velten Envoyé : mercredi 1 décembre 2010 17:36 À : mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx Objet : [mdt-papyrus.dev] Standard Profile
Hello all,
I am currently working on a documentation mechanism similar to topcased one.
To embed the documentation in the meta-model, I wrote a generic mechanism with an extension point. The default implementation uses eAnnotation like in topcased (which can be used on notation Diagram for example), however the uml implementation uses a profile to store documentation in a stereotyped comment.
So I am suggesting to create a Papyrus standard profile to embed cleanly Papyrus-related informations into the uml model.
You can find attached a first version that I am currently using in the documentation code.
Mathieu
_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev
_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev
_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev
_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev
