[udm-dev] Udm meeting memo

[Attila Vizhanyo]

Hello Endre,

We have just had a two hours meeting to discuss the current status and
future development plans of Udm.
In summary, we have agreed on the following:
1, The current namespace support in udm_ns is not viable in the
long-term, because it does not have clean and straightforward support
for non-namespace usage scenarios (which is still in active use).
2, We need to redesign the namespace feature, and reimplement the
corresponding code with the following rule in mind:
	If a user does not use namespaces, then Udm must generate the
same set of artifacts (e.g. udm xml file, DS-API, xsd, etc.) as before.
3, This change requires putting back the
Diagram-{Class,Association,Composition} containment relationships into
UmlinUml, and modifying the udm core libraries to reflect these changes.
4, We must restore the non-namespace functionality completely.

We realize that it will take several months to complete these changes.
In the meantime, we would like to start testing the existing udm_ns
version, point out its weaknesses, so that we can learn from the faults,
and take the accumulated learnings into the new design. Currently, we
are aware of two limitations that prevent us from starting the tests.
1, smart namespace generation feature
2, Discrepancy of the Udm Xml file with GME model files: since every udm
xml file contains a namespace, how can they used to validate/manipulate
GME model files, obviously with GME not having namespace support.

Please give your thoughts on these issues. If you could fix these two
problems, then we could start the extensive testing of udm_ns on the
next week.
We believe that udm_ns is now fairly close to the stage where it can be
used with reasonable confidence.
Specifically, our hope/plan is that we can prove that udm_ns is (1)
fully backward compatible, and (2) fullfills the namespace requirements
completely, in 3-4 weeks.
If we cannot show this, than we have to discard the changes, and start
adding the namespace feature from scratch (e.g. from old udm).

Meanwhile, we can start redesigning the namespace feature with the above
goals in mind. We'd also like to have you share your design ideas with
us prior to implementing them.
We can help not only in the desing, but in the implementation, as well.

Thanks,
Attila