Sorry, I meant “Papyrus-RT” core, not “Papyrus” for the new place for the runtime system model library.
“Load registered package"
for UMLRT-RTS.uml integration should be still added and present in tooling part, as this is probably the only place where this is needed. So it would be still accessible in Papyrus environment easily, and keep a small dependency footprint for code generators.
I will move this extension to a tooling.xxx plugin.
I am now thinking about the integration and the automatic loading of the model library when creating a new model. The default language framework may provide support
there, but it seems we will have 3 different possibilities when creating a new model, with all current extensions installed:
-
Structural modeling with no support (reference / load) of the runtime model library
-
Model with support of the runtime model library
-
Model with C++ support
Do you see some other case?
Regards,
Rémi
-------------------------------------------------------
Rémi SCHNEKENBURGER
+33 (0)1 69 08 48 48
CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV
Institut CARNOT CEA LIST
www.eclipse.org/papyrus
De : papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:papyrus-rt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
De la part de charles+zeligsoft.com
Envoyé : mercredi 27 avril 2016 14:39
À : papyrus-rt developer discussions <papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Re: [papyrus-rt-dev] Integration of the rts model library in the core
Some comments inline below.
I restart the work on these bugs [1] this week. I wanted to integrated quite fast, as it impacts the architecture of the tool, especially having some impact on code generator
and tooling.
The contribution on gerrit [2] is ongoing, we are only facing now some small issues on the integration/testing part. Thanks to Ernesto, the contribution for the testing of
the code generator was updated. I can easily now integration the contribution if it is OK with everyone, I just have to remove the reviewer Hudson-ci from the list of reviewers, and its -1 will be removed from the votes. Some historic discussion already happened
on that mailing list [3]
However, before integrating this contribution, I wanted to be sure everyone was OK on it:
- I
created a new plugin for the rts model library. This model is supposed to be independent from any implementation language, so I added it to the core part of Papyrus, with no link to C++ as it was before. In fact, RTS model library and the runtime were distributed
in the same plugin historically for convenience.
I don’t think it should be in Papyrus Core. It really only belongs in Papyrus-RT. This library and the runtime is specific to UML-RT and therefore to Papyrus-RT.
- I
moved the library in this new plugin, cleaned bit the dependencies, and I would like also to remove the extension as a Papyrus library. This declaration is used only for a tooling point of view, to be listed in the list of available registered libraries, it
has no impact on the element resolution when model is loaded. Removing it would remove the dependency of the library to Papyrus, thus making it usable on standalone model transformation / code generation / etc.
Regarding the part about the extension, does that mean it will no longer show in the “Load registered package”? I agree with this as long as it is automatically included in models. Actually,
since Ericsson is (or planning on) using Papyrus-RT as a DSML platform that may not require the codegen or RTS, automatic inclusion may not be an ideal solution, but then you should also be able to remove stuff when creating a DSML.
However, it must be tied to the UML-RT code generation and the actual runtime. So if you are planning on using one of these, all three
must be available in the toolset. Perhaps an option for UML-RT code generation on project/model setup, with default on inclusion (as I believe it to be the most common option)?
- I
changed the pathmap location. It now points to the new plugin, so there are no impacts on the existing models referencing the model library by the pathmap (which should be always the case).
- The
o.e.prt.rts only contains the generated C++ code. As it is C++ dependent, I would advise to make it obvious in the namespace.
Does everyone agree on that changes?
Once the contribution is merged, I can finish the work on the system protocol identification (and system classes by the way) relying on default language framework & specific
profile
[1] Bug 488104:
Identify UML-RT system classes in UMLRT-RTS model library
Bug 477721:
Decide on common principle to identify system protocols,
including base protocol in UML-RT model library
-------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev
|