From Suhrid.net Wiki
- 1 Abstract
- 2 Statement of Ethics
- 3 Introduction
- 4 Literature Review
- 5 Requirements
- 6 Design
- 7 Implementation
- 8 Evaluation
- 9 Conclusions
- This report developes the idea of a visual graphical editor for Epsilon and the process of developing it.
- A fully working epsilon workflow builder and visualizer is also presented that helps users to compose Epsilon workflows and construct visual representations from textual ones.
Statement of Ethics
- Informal user survey for requirements.
- Formal user survey to evaluate the tool ?
- Why EWE ? What is the need ?
- Workflow inherently visual - flow of order of tasks.
- e.g. BPM tools all provide editors.
- MDE is essentially a sequence of steps from start to finish.
- Other model management languages, frameworks tools provide it as well. (Atlas, OpenAW, etc)
- Therefore Epsilon, needs one too.
- Documents the process of building such a tool using MDE techniques and Epsilon itself.
- Introduce ALL concepts and technologies that are critical to understanding the tool.
- Model driven engineering - tasks involved. Tasks constitute a workflow.
- Workflows in general - BPM workflows, Model driven engineering workflows.JBPMN
- Build tools - Visualize Build Tools - ANT, VizAnt, Ant Explorer, Ant Utility
- Other MDE Workflows - OpenArchitectureWare, ModelBus Atlas MegaModel Management
- How does Epsilon handle it ? Internal architecture of Epsilon Workflow.
- Talk about EMC Layer - this will be useful later - to explain how powerful it is to directly use EMF API or DOM API.
- ANT, Java Modules, Eclipse Launch configuration, Working outside Eclipse.
- Provide a general introduction to build management, concept of dependency, task ordering, conditional ordering, task failures, transactions.
- How ANT provides some of these features as a build tool. How Epsilon uses ANT as an architecture - quote from Epsilon ANT paper.
- Introduce idea of domain modeling. Separate the concern of design and architecture. This is the CORE idea.
- Eclipse EMF technologies. How EMF supports Domain Modeling. Give a simple Library example.
- Library domain is expressed. An Editor for the domain is generated - but uses unique architecture. e.g. Adapter, Factory and Command patterns - which WE never specified while modeling the domain.
- Make sure this concept is well understood. MDE in general and how EMF tools support MDE with practical examples.
- Eclipse graphical technologies GEF -> SWT, JFace.
- Eclipse GMF as a bridge between GEF and EMF.
- How GMF is Model based and Generative
- How it fits well for Epsilon since both are based on EMF.
- Introduction to EuGENia.
- Initial project description
- Asking Epsilon users to comment on forum
- Discussion with Supervisor
- Self proposed requirements
- Eclipse vs NonEclipse
- EMF in built editor vs (GMF/Graphiti)
- GMF vs Graphiti
- GMF - EuGENia support (Generate GMF vs manual GMF model creation), in house expertise with GMF models, EuGENia authors based in York, customization.
- EuGENia GMF support for EVL and error/warning markers.
ECore metamodel design
- Represeting ANT concepts as GMF nodes for e.g. Project, Target.
- Using concept of depends and follows.
- Accurate modeling of ANT structure - allows operations to be performed at the higher Task level as opposed to lower levels - such as EOLTask etc.
Scripting design choices
- Using Java vs using Epsilon languages
- Epsilon :- reflective features. Easy model navigation.
- Generate Java Module code ? Or Generate ANT XML Code ?
- ANT XML - To support legacy use case and avoid complexity of Java module code.
- EEF Model manipulation - Instead of editing code, was done using EOL scripting.
- Using EGL:
- Protected regions: Merge engine
- XML Formatter
- Full reflective support.
- Task to GMF node mapping design choices (Which elements in the metamodel should be visualized)
- Compartments vs Property views - Too boxy. So rejected.
- Property Sheet
- Property Sheet implementation choices : Custom SWT code (rejected/knowledge of SWT - Time constraints: Used by Ecore editor)
- EEF as the choice.
- EEF: new technology, never been integrated with GMF before.
- Challenges in customising EEF - Poorly documented code base.
- XML Parsers vs EOL vs ETL
- Development methodology used ? - Justify.
- ECore diagram editor was used to specify the metamodels.
- GMF annotations were made in the editor.
- What all GMF annotations were used.
- How GMF models were customized after generation.
- EEF implementation.
- How EEF was plugged-in.
- Customizing code-generation properties - Namespace, package structure, documentation.
- Generated code customization: For e.g. disabling unwanted creation tools.
- EGL implementation.
- EVL implementation.
- Parsing implementation
- EOL vs ETL
- ETL was chosen - why ?
- ETL implementation choice - Reflective vs Declarative (Balance dealing with future change vs ease of code)
- Where to list identified enhancements for the project ?
- EWE itself - support conditional statements.
- EuGENia enhancements identified - bugs.
- Integrate EEF within EuGENia MDE process.
- Contribution of EWE itself <- In Evaluation section ?
- Evaluation will proceed by applying the new contributions to the examples of existing workflows, and demonstrating differences with respect to functionality and development process.
- Difference in functionality between automated and manual methods.
- Ease of usability in composing workflows.
- Ease of modifiability of existing manual workflows using the visual editor.
- Ease of use for first time users in building workflows and understand Epsilon Workflow language.
- Development process refers to what ?
- An analysis of the ways in which Epsilon users construct and use workflows.
- Three improvements to the prototypical Epsilon workflow language to support visualisation and automatic code generation.
- A comparison of the prototypical and improved versions of the Epsilon workflow language.
Evaluating the Artefact
- Test cases as a method of evaluation?
- Manual testing and verifications against requirements.
- Black box testing for evaluating against user requirements.
- Test case with a description against each FR and NFR. Process of executing, screenshots etc.
- White box testing:
- Cite EUnit paper about Difficulty in performing white box testing for MDE tasks.
- Develop some Sample EUnit cases.
- Similar to Case Study?
- Explain why it makes more sense for an actual user evaluation rather than a self performed case study.
- Self case study : usability aspects difficult to evaluate due to intimacy with tool.
- Informal live User Evaluation: Perform series of exercises designed to evaluate usability of new tool.
- Discuss results of experiments ? (Describe experiments/exercies here as well).
- Ethical considerations.
Evaluating the metamodel design
Evaluating the code generator
Evaluating the code visualizer
Evaluating the development process
- Huge productivity benefits.
- Understanding complex UI frameworks avoided.
- No of classes and code gneerated enormous.
- Focues on higher level abstraction - code gen, viz, validation would not have been possible.
- Significant time was spent - tweaking model, generating code.
- Finding out where in code modifications need to take place.
- Significant time was spent in researching EEF integration with EuGENia generated GMF editor. Trial/error, forum posting
- Provide a concise summary of the whole project.
- Making accurate predictions of results that would be obtained by applying the present work in new areas.
- Extend it as a GMF editor for any complex application that needs to use Ant as a basis..g. JBPM - JBoss.
- Use it to visualise complex Ant builds within Eclipse IDE.
- More ?
- FURTHER WORK here or in Evaluation.
- Lessons learnt, personal reflection.