Matthias, Why do we keep the uml14 in the package name of the common model? I think we should get rid of that...that way we don't need the tagged value telling the name of the interface package....as well as the fact that we wouldn't need to create another mapping file since every metafacade support class would have the same name as the interface + "LogicImpl", so we could just create the metafacade using interfacade.package.MyMetafacadeInterface + "LogicImpl". Also since we have the the uml/uml14 module directory, I don't see why we need the uml14 in the base model package name. If/when we need another base model we can just create a new one from the UmlMetafacadeModel.xml.zip...I don't think its good to have the base model have every meta model (if thats what you were thinking by leaving the package name in there). What do you say...this would simply things?
Thanks, Chad ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Andromda-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/andromda-devel
