Hi,
One benefit for end-users I could foresee with doing this in the "right way", is that the proposed improvements to EMF Compare that Philip mentioned the other day, see bug 512514, regarding proper support for redefinition, hopefully can improve the way truly redefined OpaqueBehaviors can be presented in EMF Compare. Apart from that I doubt that any end-user really bothers about a correct redefinition being established or not. What do you say Philip, do you think that the proposed improvements to EMF Compare could be useful also for this case as well?
Yes, I would think so. I'll have to check how the currently planned implementation would behave for OpaqueBehaviors, but I assume that we could make it work for them too. I also think that it may require additional customization with respect to the generic default behavior of EMF Compare, because also without redefinition support, OpaqueBehaviors require some special treatment due to their "semantically connected" language and body attributes. We have implemented this special treatment of those attributes already a while ago, but I'll have to double-check how this can be combined with the redefinition support. Anyway, I think we can make this work.
I'll add this use case to the set of test cases that we use for design and implementation of this feature.
Thanks and best wishes,
Philip