[gme-users] Why doesn't MetaGME address paradigm versionchangesautomatically?

Thu Apr 22 15:52:08 CDT 2004

OK, I agree that manually exporting/importing all your projects is a pain in
the back. However, our situation with the GME release is a bit different
than yours with CAPE. You have to support one well defined paradigm. We have
several "built-in" paradigms, plus we might have to deal with unknown
paradigms developed and registered by the user. 
Your suggestion is feasible and appropriate if we are considering the
MetaGME environment only. So, I've filed your comments to bugzilla. Hope,
some time I will get to it in my todo list.

One more thing: changes in the meta paradigm often reflect some changes in
the GME code (eg.: introducing new preferences, etc.). Therefore we'd always
like to enforce our users to upgrade.
--
peter

  _____  

From: gme-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:gme-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Larry
Howard
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 5:53 PM
To: A list for GME users to share thoughts and discuss bugs and fixes.
Subject: Re: [gme-users] Why doesn't MetaGME address paradigm
versionchangesautomatically?

The main reason we highly recommend the export/import method when upgrading
is the possible incompatibility between the MGA file formats

And how often does this actually happen relative to the number of GME
releases?  Is a change in the MGA file format something that is not known to
the development team for a particular release?  If it is, would it not make
more sense to provide this guidance relative to a particular release,
perhaps in the release notes?  And speaking of this, I highly recommend that
GME make the release notes for new versions available from the
download/distribution site prior to installation so that GME users can
decide if upgrading is important to them.

Now, none of this changes the recommendation that I made in the earlier
message.  Clearly exporting to XME is used as a solution for not
distributing multiple paradigm versions for the paradigms that GME
distributes, including the vital MetaGME.   You are correct that this is the
problem that CAPE distributions address, and I continue to argue that it is
both good practice and relatively easily effected.  Further, I believe that
support for paradigm migration is something that the MetaGME paradigm should
view as a requirement, regardless of whether it can be handled by GME's
normal upgrading machinery.

Developers must view decisions from the perspective of their users.  When
there will be 100s of GME users, who potentially have 10s of projects (as I
do), certain decisions begin to look like Microsoft's early decisions
regarding registry changes and rebooting.  Shall we not be more proactive?
--
Larry Howard
Sr. Research Scientist
Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Vanderbilt University
 <mailto:howardlp at isis.vanderbilt.edu> howardlp at isis.vanderbilt.edu   voice:
(615) 343-7447 fax: (615) 343-7440

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Peter Volgyesi <mailto:peter.volgyesi at vanderbilt.edu>  
To: 'A list for GME users to  <mailto:gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu>
share thoughts and discuss bugs and fixes.' 
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:35 AM
Subject: RE: [gme-users] Why doesn't MetaGME address paradigm version
changesautomatically?

Larry,

The main reason we highly recommend the export/import method when upgrading
is the possible incompatibility between the MGA file formats (note: not
because of some paradigm change but the change of the file format itself).
This kind of problem has not be handled by CAPE, and it is far from
straightforward to provide such a migrating tool (this tool would have to
access different MGA versions on the very same computer).
--
peter

  _____  

From: gme-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
[mailto:gme-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Larry
Howard
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 4:51 PM
To: gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: [gme-users] Why doesn't MetaGME address paradigm version changes
automatically?

GME's release notes state:

"As your first step in the upgrade process, please export all your
important projects (to XML format). Binary compatibility between
different GME versions is not guaranteed."

We have recognized and addressed this issue for our GME-based product CAPE.
During installation, we distribute and register all paradigm versions that
we currently support, and updaters are provided to address any
discontinuities not handled by GME's native upgrading features.  We do this
because it is an unreasonable expectation of our users to export all of
their GME projects to XME prior to upgrading GME versions, especially when
exporting to XME is used to address simply the unavailability of earlier
versions of a paradigm.

GME distributes several paradigms as part of its installation.  Most
important among these is the MetaGME paradigm that is an essential part of
using GME for anything other than projects that use the other distributed
paradigms.  It would be relatively straightforward for the MetaGME paradigm
to follow the lead of CAPE in supporting migration between paradigm
versions, since it is unlikely for this paradigm to incorporate such
discontinuties as could not be handled by GME's native upgrading features or
simple updaters.

Why not?!!

lph
--
Larry Howard
Sr. Research Scientist
Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Vanderbilt University
 <mailto:howardlp at isis.vanderbilt.edu> howardlp at isis.vanderbilt.edu   voice:
(615) 343-7447 fax: (615) 343-7440

  _____  

_______________________________________________
gme-users mailing list
gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/gme-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/pipermail/gme-users/attachments/20040422/00e4203f/attachment.htm