I think that's a decent idea, however, our new VDB framework does not use EMF anymore, so our built-in "build" framework that utilizes "validation rules" may not work.
Currently we have no VDB-specific validation.
JPAV, do our validation rules have to be implemented via EMF? and/or can they be applied to a simple IResource (i.e. xxxx.vdb file)?
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Doyle" <jdoyle@redhat.com>
To: "Barry Lafond" <blafond@redhat.com>
Cc: "teiid-dev" <teiid-dev@lists.jboss.org>, "teiid-designer-dev" <teiid-designer-dev@lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:43:22 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [teiid-designer-dev] Materialized Views
----- "Barry Lafond" <blafond@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
......
> That all said, would it be wrong to NOT treat these Materialization Physical models as dependencies? Users would be totally responsible for including them in a VDB containing the original virtual models?
>
> Comments, ideas?
While it certainly would be best to add them automatically like we do for other models, would it be possibly to flag a missing Materialization Physical model as a validation error on a VDB without changing the metamodel? Would that be good enough?
>
> Barry
>
> _______________________________________________
teiid-designer-dev mailing list
teiid-designer-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/teiid-designer-dev