Re: [modeling-pmc] Contribution: template engine for GMF

[Ed Merks <merks@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rich,

I talked to Kenn and Fred and they both
made comments that are echoed in your comments below.   I.e., make
sure it's clearly marked as internal and make sure it's clear that this
will be replaced with the expected M2T component as soon as possible once
it's available there.  

So you have my support for doing this.


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)

Richard Gronback <richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

08/22/2006 01:11 PM

Please respond to
PMC members mailing list <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	PMC members mailing list <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	Sven Efftinge <sven@xxxxxxxxxxx>, voelter@xxxxxxx
Subject	Re: [modeling-pmc] Contribution: template engine for GMF

The sandbox approach is not an option at
this time (per the Board of Directors), afaiu.

I’m not opposed to temporarily housing this derivative of xPand within
an GMF internal package of the tooling component, as long as:

• the oAW team has no objections, as it’s based on their work
• we migrate to M2T version asap (Artem to work with oAW/M2T on contributing his modifications)
• it has minimal impact on the build/packaging/usage of GMF

Thanks,
Rich


On 8/22/06 1:02 PM, "Artem Tikhomirov" <Artem.Tikhomirov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Ed,

 Let me question the 'proper process' term :) What's wrong with GMF having
template engine tailored for its own needs? If there was an engine/project
already and I'd try to parallel it, that might be wrong. There's no project
yet, nor even the proposal is finished, let alone deliverables. To me,
it sounds like few months. Few months mean no chances for GMF 2.0 to use
it - there are certain changes we can't afford to make in M6, for example.
Delaying use of technology for a year just because later there *may* appear
'official' implementation doesn't sound as justification for 'improper'.
Moreover, switch to the 'official' implementation is the goal; intention
of the contribution is just to make it happen in 2.0 timeframe. 

 GMF team is not going to dedicate its efforts to work on template engine,
it's a mere tool for the team to solve some problems more efficiently.
The engine is mature enough for us to just use it.

 Sandboxing activities might sound as a solution, though I doubt can be
done without severely affecting ongoing GMF work for (again) few months.
  Reusing what is there in GMT is not an option because of ANTLR dependency
and few other third-party libraries (e.g. code formatting)

Best wishes,
Artem Tikhomirov

---

From: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
 [mailto:modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ed  Merks
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:26 PM
To: PMC  members mailing list
Cc: voelter@xxxxxxx; Sven Efftinge;  modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx;
modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:  Re: [modeling-pmc] Contribution: template engine for
GMF

 

Artem, 

Being terminally  impatient, I can certainly relate to your desire
to take action now and not  wait around for a bunch of administrative
delays.  But that being said,  the proper process here really
is to get this M2T proposal approved and then  do this work within
the bounds of that project.   Also keep in mind that  any use
of LPG by any project still needs to be legal approved even though OCL
 is already approved to use it; of course this will go much faster
since the  due diligence is already complete.  Could your activities
take place in a  sandbox (i.e., not in public CVS) until this M2T
thing is approved?  Or  could you simply reuse what's in GMT
now until a syntax equivalent version of  it is available from M2T?
  

Sven and Paul, 

Do you guys  have an ETA for when the M2T proposal will be ready to
submit to the EMO?   (The MDT proposal has already been submitted.)


Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto:  merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265  (t/l 969)




   
 "Artem Tikhomirov"  <Artem.Tikhomirov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: modeling-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
 08/22/2006 11:07 AM

 Please respond  to
PMC members mailing list  <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

   

 To

<modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>  

 cc

Sven Efftinge  <sven@xxxxxxxxxxx>, voelter@xxxxxxx  

 Subject

[modeling-pmc] Contribution:  template engine for GMF
 
 



Hello,

I'm writing to inform the PMC about intent to provide  significant code contribution to one of Modeling projects, namely GMF. The  contribution is template engine, to be used along with JET engine, which is  the only template engine used in GMF now.

This new template engine is  based on Xpand template engine which is part of openArchitectureWare  framework,  GMT project (http://www.eclipse.org/gmt/oaw). It's  stripped-down version of the framework, with pieces relevant and essential  only for code generation left. All dependencies from 3rd party libraries were  removed and the only one left - parser/grammar framework (ANTLR 2.7), has been  replaced with LPG library (one EMFT uses for OCL). Rest of the original code  is licensed under EPL.

Xpand approach to code generation is different  from JET's and proved to be much more convenient for some tasks we face with  GMF templates. Also, one of initial plan items for GMF states support for  flexible method of generation  (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=114207), thus new engine helps  both GMF developers and GMF users to express their 'textual' intentions with a  language they feel most suitable.

oAW framework and Xpand in particular  are being considered as initial contributions to Model to Text project. Also,  M2T project might have support to switch template engines. However, project  set up and first deliveries are points in distant future (months), and that  just means "no" for GMF 2.0. Using GMF-owned component allows us to start  using new engine soon. Syntax of the new engine is almost identical to that of  original, and there won't be a problem to switch to M2T deliveries once they  are out. Note, however, that proposed contribution in not kind of 'throw away'  stuff, pieces of it might find their way into M2T contributions (e.g. LPG  grammars, test cases, patches and improvements)

Size of the  contribution is about 10KLOC of handwritten code plus few grammar definitions  and LPG generated code. Contribution is thoroughly covered with unit tests  (200+).

I'll need PMC approval to proceed with contribution  questionnaire (http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf and  http://www.eclipse.org/legal/ContributionQuestionnairePart1-v1.0.php). Please  let me know your opinion and feel free to ask any question about the  contribution. Thank you!

Best wishes,
Artem Tikhomirov  
_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing  list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc

---

_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc


-- 
Richard C. Gronback
Borland Software Corporation
richard.gronback@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1 860 227 9215_______________________________________________
modeling-pmc mailing list
modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling-pmc