Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] [Naming Convension] Xtumlrt and RTS

[Peter Cigéhn <peter.cigehn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 19 September 2016 at 17:49, Ernesto Posse <eposse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As part of the discussions regarding the language framework and the support for multiple target languages, it was decided that the model library should be packaged and deployed separately, as part of the "common" plugins. I'm not sure why that was the case, and probably Charles and Peter could give a better explanation, but I think the idea is that the model library itself is supposed to be independent of the target language, and therefore it should not be part of either the C++ code generator or the C++ runtime.

​Way back I drew a picture, 

on a rather high

​​

level

​, ​

​of how I thought that the features/components should be structured. See https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/papyrus-rt-dev/msg00215.html and the related mail thread regarding this.

​Since I like symmetry, I added the two boxes "Common Code Generator" and "Common Runtime", without considering the ​

​

​size of these boxes and exactly what they would contain. During the discussion it was concluded the the "Common Code Generator"-box probably could be rather "thick" whenever we would add multiple target languages, whereas the "Common​ Runtime" would be rather thin (or maybe even no commonalities would be identified).

However, the current run-time model library, is as Ernesto say, assumed to be target language agnostic and thus it was concluded that it could be placed in the "Common Runtime"-box. I myself am not fully convinced though that this intention of having a target language agnostic run-time model library will hold whenever we actually will start adding support for multiple target languages. Comparing with the legacy modeling tool, there are in fact different run-time model libraries for different target languages. I am not arguing for this solution, just stating that the assumption that the run-time model library is target language agnostic maybe not will hold the day we actually start adding additional target languages.

And thus, the (different) run-time model libraries could very well have to "move up" into its respective language runtime boxes, leaving the "Common Runtime"-box basically empty (or very thin).

This picture however is rather conceptual and it probably have not been considered much when structuring/naming things in the Git repo.

/Peter Cigéhn