Issue 3208: PACKAGING AND DEPLOYMENT METAMODEL (components-ftf) Source: SAP AG (Mr. David Frankel, david.frankel(at)sap.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: 1) Some concepts from the CORBA metamodel (component, facet, receptacle, event publishing/emission/consumption) are also in P/D metamodel but the definitions from the CORBA metamodel are not directly reused. Recommendation: Analyze where reuse is appropriate and adjust the P/D metamodel accordingly. 2) The P/D metamodel has the notion of files (e.g. configuration property files and some other files) where some metadata are stored. The hand-coded DTDs treat these files as types in their own right, i.e. they conceptualize them as files, and some of the other types point to the file types. This is approach is mimicked in the metamodel. However, it might not make sense in the metamodel because, in a repository context, you are referencing other information in the repository and not necessarily a file. The way the metamodel is now, when something references one of these files you lose the metadata trail. The file metaclass itself does not have structural features pointing to metaclasses that define the contents of the file. You have to go elsewhere (i.e. to the property file Package) to get that metadata and there is no reference to the property file Package. Recommendation: It might make more sense for references to the file metaclass to instead reference the top level element of the property file Package so that you can "follow the metadata trail." If someone wants to break out the properties metadata in a file, then the generated DTD should allow that, i.e. the part that needs to go into a properties file should be able to be self-contained without external references. Resolution: rejected, See issue 4575. Revised Text: Actions taken: January 11, 2000: received issue May 13, 2002: closed issue Discussion: This issue points out only two problems of the packaging and deployment model. There are lot of other problems and there are lots of inconsistencies between the meta model and the deployment descriptors. For this reason, it is better to remove the Packaging and Deployment meta model and to address this by a future RFP process. End of Annotations:===== PACKAGING AND DEPLOYMENT METAMODEL 1) Some concepts from the CORBA metamodel (component, facet, receptacle, event publishing/emission/consumption) are also in P/D metamodel but the definitions from the CORBA metamodel are not directly reused. Recommendation: Analyze where reuse is appropriate and adjust the P/D metamodel accordingly. 2) The P/D metamodel has the notion of files (e.g. configuration property files and some other files) where some metadata are stored. The hand-coded DTDs treat these files as types in their own right, i.e. they conceptualize them as files, and some of the other types point to the file types. This is approach is mimicked in the metamodel. However, it might not make sense in the metamodel because, in a repository context, you are referencing other information in the repository and not necessarily a file. The way the metamodel is now, when something references one of these files you lose the metadata trail. The file metaclass itself does not have structural features pointing to metaclasses that define the contents of the file. You have to go elsewhere (i.e. to the property file Package) to get that metadata and there is no reference to the property file Package. Recommendation: It might make more sense for references to the file metaclass to instead reference the top level element of the property file Package so that you can "follow the metadata trail." If someone wants to break out the properties metadata in a file, then the generated DTD should allow that, i.e. the part that needs to go into a properties file should be able to be self-contained without external references. X-Authentication-Warning: gendev.com: Host ppp-209-232-193-121.dialup.chic01.pacbell.net [209.232.193.121] claimed to be dfrankel Reply-To: From: "David S. Frankel" To: "Components-Ftf@Omg. Org" , Subject: Issue 3208 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:44:55 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000707134521.00c1dbc0@svlhome2.beasys.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: $&3!!>Rid9ZisBasic implies (key->isEmpty and base->isEmpty and manages.isBasic)" 8) The generated XMI and IDL for the ComponentIDL package would be completely replaced by newly generated XMI and IDL that uses the MOF and IDL algorithms for generating XML DTDs and IDL from a metamodel. ================================ David S. Frankel Chief Scientist Genesis Development Corporation An Iona Technologies' Company 741 Santiago Court Chico, CA 95973-8781 USA +1 530 893-1100 voice +1 530 893-1153 fax dfrankel@gendev.com http://www.gendev.com ================================ > -----Original Message----- > From: Edward Cobb [mailto:ed.cobb@bea.com] > Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 1:45 PM > To: components-ftf@omg.org > Subject: Issues and Voting > > > In Oslo, we agreed to schedule a vote on the next set of > components issues > by July 15. To date, I have not seen any proposed resolutions circulated > except the ones I sent out on June 26 (which have received no comments to > date). I intend to post Vote 4 by the end of next week (5PM PDT July 14 - > Bastille Day). To have a resolution ready to vote, proposals need to be > circulated early next week. > Right now, the totality of resolutions to be voted are all > mine. Isn't > anybody even slightly embarassed? > ************************************************************** > Ed Cobb, Vice President, Advanced Technology & Standards > BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131 > Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8942 > E-mail: ed.cobb@beasys.com > ************************************************************** >