Hi Kay, thank you very much for reporting this issue.
I recently created some more test cases which checked the behavior of the tool extensions and figured out the same problem which you pointed out in your email: (1) the serialization should not have any dependencies do the ProR configuration model (2) the serialization should not complain if there are third party tool extensions in the model (3) If an EMF package is registered for some tool extensions then the serialization should create the appropriate java classes In order to fix the handling of (third-party) tool extension I need to properly make use of the EMF xsd:any mechanism. A bug that requests the fix is already available: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=376942 Fixing this bug is number one on my list :-) Concerning your problem reading RMF 0.1.0 files in RMF 0.2.0: * you need to update the reqif XML namespace to "http://www.omg.org/spec/ReqIF/20110401/reqif.xsd"; (the 0.1.0 reqif namespace did not comply to the ReqIF 1.0.1 standard) * In RMF 0.1.0 the XML serialization of the tool extensions was using the xsi:type concept. Unfortunately, many XML schema validation engines have problems with this concept. (or I did not find out how to properly configure the parser) Thus theRMF 0.2.0 tool extensions are written in an XML format that doesn't require any xsi:type attributes. In order to read existing RMF 0.1.0 files you will need to remove the tool extensions from the XML file. If you have further questions please let me know kind regards mark > Hi again, > > trying to realize a small project on top of RMF, I get into some > trouble. > > Requirement of the project is to read in a ReqIF file > and getting a 'ReqIF' object programmatically by > using reqif packages only. > > With that object in memory, I would try to write the spec objects > into say a LaTeX-file or Wiki-pages perhaps. > This shall be the core for a maven plugin which generates the > paper-output or a collaboration-platform automatically. > Also this may go into an enhancement for ProR; recently I've > got Clayberg/Rubel's 'eclipse Plug-ins'... > > My current problem is to not knowing, if I'm reading a ReqIF file in > the correct way, so please take a look at the attached code example. > > What makes me astonished is that it seems that I'm not able to read a > file which was absolutely valid in ProR 0.1.0, and why do I have > to 'register' EPackages related to - I think - ProR to read a file > with 0.2.0-tool-extensions? > > I think it must be possible to read ReqIF files with the reqif packages > ignoring any tool-extensions. Think about the 0.1.0 file > as written by another tool from another vendor... > > Best regards > Kay > -- Mark Brörkens Softwarearchitekt, Projekt- und Produktmanager Telefon: +49 30 69 535 878 Telefax: +49 30 62 908 067 Mobil: +49 151 61301259 (bevorzugt) http://www.itemis.de mark.broerk...@itemis.de https://www.xing.com/profile/mark_broerkens http://twitter.com/MarkBroerkens itemis AG Niederlassung Berlin Ohlauer Straße 43 10999 Berlin Rechtlicher Hinweis: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621 Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus Aufsichtsrat: Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Stephan Grollmann, Michael Neuhaus
_______________________________________________ rmf-dev mailing list rmf-dev@eclipse.org http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rmf-dev
