Tom wrote:
Does the following make sense?
If our workbench uses a model an IConfigurationElement is not needed any
more because you do your contribution using XMI (if we use EMF).
Tom, this is one of the important points that is being missed; thank you
for pointing it out.
We -cannot- simply say we dont' need to use 'x' anymore where 'x' is
something that comes from our use of 'core' infrastructure.
IConfigurationElement is the integration point for our extension point
handling. We're a -consumer- of these objects (which are supplied by
equinox now) and unless we're going to re-write equinox they will, by
necessity, exist in e4. The same is true where 'x' is part of our current
API, at least IMemento and ScopedPreferenceStore fit into this category...
This is why I've been proposing YAMI (Yet Another Model Interface); if it
were simply another API supporting the same functionality I'd be
justifiably shot (I'd do it myself...;-). What I'm hoping to be able to do
is to at least allow our users to have a 'common' api through which they
can access the underlying information in a consistent manner; we make one
more API but they see at least 3 -less-.
Please step back from EMF for a second and take this into consideration
when thinking about the 'common' API; it's job isn't necessarily to
support a single particular model but to allow common access to many
different model 'flavors' in order to simplify the story for our clients.
At least that's my dream,
Eric
_______________________________________________
eclipse-incubator-e4-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-incubator-e4-dev
