Re: self describing MOF?



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Alexander Rupsch (Alexander.Rupsch@gmx.de)
Date: Wed 21 Apr 2004 - 16:21:04 BST


Laurence Tratt wrote:

>>>One thing to bear in mind is that in the upcoming 2.0 standards, political
>>>fudgery has split MOF into EMOF and CMOF which further muddies already
>>>murky waters.
>>
>>Can you explain why that is so?
> I don't think it's any big secret that a Very Large Company is happy that
> EMOF is a very close match to the metamodel in one of their tools.

I don't know the internals of the specification process, but I heard 
about the bad mood. Is it only political or are there technical facts?

But beside of the fights there. Personally I like ECore. It's clean 
coded and well supported by the developers. And it is free, everyone can 
benefit from the work done there. Well, I didn't use it much already, so 
I can say if its mature enough.

To not get me wrong I'm neutral at the point of what's happened inside 
the standardization process, since I don't know enough about the internals.

regards.
-- 
Alexander Rupsch
http://www.dreinhalb.de

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view