--- Matthias Bohlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Chad, > > I kept the 'uml14' in the package name because the > classes for UML 1.3 > will have different implementations. If we give them > identical package > names we will never be able to have them both on the > same classpath. > Therefor, in general, I think that two different > classes should always > have two different fully qualified names.
True, but why would you ever want more than one meta model on the classpath? > > And: I don't know yet whether the UML 1.3 or UML 2.0 > metaclasses will be > the same as the UML 1.4 metaclasses. The same facade > might have > different dependencies to different metaclasses. Our > AFacade might > depend on metaclass A in UML 1.4 but on metaclass B > in UML 2.0. Ok that makes sense > > So, it may be necessary to have different facade > models for different > metamodel versions. Since want to have the facade > classes only once in > the model, my first idea was to add names to the > dependencies, calling > them 'uml14' or 'uml20'. The meta cartridge could > then generate code > using the proper dependencies, selected by a user > property in a > namespace. > > Next idea: We could change the package name of the > facade classes in the > model to the interface package name > 'org.andromda.metafacades.uml' and > could control the package name into which the > implementations are > generated also by an externally defined user > property in a namespace. > > This would look like this: > > <andromda ...> > <namespace ...> > <property name="metamodelVersion" > value="uml14" /> > <property name="implPackageName" > value="org.andromda....uml14" /> > ... > </namespace> > </andromda> > > What do you think of this? I do like this better than the way we are handling it now....I think its more understandable...and also we would NOT need the additional mappings file since we could expect the metamodelVersion property to specify the additional text to add to the package name when constructing the facade impls > > Cheers... > Matthias > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chad Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 11:02 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: > > > > > > 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
