Hi, I want to thank for all the replies. There were lots of things that become clearer to me.
I agree with the suggestion to organize the discussions. So, Naci, please do as you suggest. Greetings Kaloyan -----Original Message----- From: Naci Dai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 6:16 PM To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. Cc: Stefanov, Tzanko; Chuck Bridgham; Raev, Kaloyan Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Java EE 5 models design overview I can take the lead to coordinate and facilitate this discussion. I think it makes the most sense to setup a focus group to plan the work. May I suggest that at least we should have the participation of: Chuck Bridgham - As the Component and Tech Lead for the EE5 Models Neil Hauge - Mapping Annotations Kaloyan Raev - Adopter/Contributor And other interested parties..... I will prepare an agenda based on the discussions and suggest alternatives for the meeting calendar > > Hi, > > I think its time for me to jump in and offer a few suggestions for the > EE5 models. > I think it makes sense to create a seperate package for these models, > but extend the existing J2EE models for a few reasons. > > - EE5 namespace includes legacy J2EE elements > Because the new EE5 namespace includes the existing 1.4 > elements, we can take advantage of the existing models/EMF-DOM XML > translators. > - Extending the model will help migration scenarios. > - With the introduction of annotations, the new extended model classes > can be adapted using a "new" mapping framework between a annotated JDT > AST model (Not JEM). > > The existing J2EE models were originally modeled from the J2EE 1.2 > version of the spec (DTD's) using the Rose2Ecore transformation tools. > These models were evolved as new > spec versions were published, being careful that they were backward > compatible, and using the XML translators to "select" the attributes > used by each spec version. > > As Neil and Shaun have noted, the translator framework has its > limitations, and isn't well documented, and was built primarily as a > bridge between EMF and different XML models/parsing technologies. > Its not built to handle annotation mapping. > > By using many of the same techniques Dali has implemented adapting > their EMF model with the JDT AST model, and refactoring out a mapping > layer similar to the translator framework, adopters could then > publish their own annotation processing layer. WTP could create a > reference implentation of this. Also as Neil states - the XML and > annotation models don't match in all cases, and seperate mappings will > be required > to keep a comon EMF model in synch. > > I agree JEM is not the direction we want to take for modelling > annotations. This project has not committed for making these > enhancements. Creating a model around the JDT AST makes the most sense. > We also need to do more research regrading the APT api's. I know the > Dali guys have some feedback here as well. > > Its probably time for "someone" to gather all of these comments, and > setup a meeting soon to discuss further - ideas? > > Thanks - Chuck > > Rational J2EE Tooling Team Lead > IBM Software Lab - Research Triangle Park, NC > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: 919-254-1848 (T/L: 444) > > > > *"Raev, Kaloyan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 11/15/2006 09:10 AM > Please respond to > "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." > <[email protected]> > > > > To > "General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." > <[email protected]> > cc > "Stefanov, Tzanko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject > RE: [wtp-dev] Java EE 5 models design overview > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jesper, > > We have taken a look at the J2EE 1.4 models implementation. It did make > impression that there are lots of hand made tweaks there. > > We decided to make the initial Java EE 5 models generated from the XML > schemas. There is also a lot of hand made work to be done to integrate > Java Annotations in these models. > > Can you outline in more details the tweaks that were done to the J2EE > 1.4 models, so we have them in mind for the Java EE 5 ones? Do you think > better approach is to extend the existing J2EE 1.4 models with Java EE 5 > specification instead of implementing separate Java EE 5 models? > > Greetings > Kaloyan > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Jesper Steen Moller > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:52 PM > To: General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues. > Subject: Re: [wtp-dev] Java EE 5 models design overview > > Actually, the current J2EE models rely on hand-coded XML translation > between the EMF and DOM model, using the nifty Translator framework. > Making that work with an EMF model is done by hand, and not for the > faint of heart. > However, it gives rewards with round-trip editing inside SSE and with > the possibility of versioning the XML, e.g. for web.xml 2.2, 2.4. > > We're using this framework in the Mule IDE - it is very powerful, but > has its quirks. > > -Jesper > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > wtp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev > -- Naci Dai, eteration a.s. itu teknokent ari-1 25 Maslak, Istanbul 34469 +90 (533) 580 2393 (cell) +90 (212) 328 0825 (phone) +90 (212) 328 0521 (fax) http://www.eteration.com/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ wtp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev
