On 27 sept. 2010, at 11:21, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Indeed, I forgot to announce that. The textual menu was moved in the window menu (the icon on the top right).
ah ok :)
I never use that menu, and I'm not sure other people takes a look at it. Actually I have a different expectation for this bytton: its common behaviour on MacOs is to hide/show the toolbar. So is it a wise choice?
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
> On 27 Sep 2010, at 11:01, Simon Denier wrote:
>
>>
>> With the latest update of Glamour, I don't have anymore the toolbar menu entitled '...' with the iconless actions. (in MoosePanel and the MetaBrowser)
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't have time to check deeper.
>>
>> --
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
Simon
With the latest update of Glamour, I don't have anymore the toolbar menu entitled '...' with the iconless actions. (in MoosePanel and the MetaBrowser)
Sorry, I didn't have time to check deeper.
--
Simon
I'm preparing the doc about metamodeling in Moose using Fame, but that's using the regular code browser en refactoring browser. Right now there are some consistency validation of metamodel described in Lint rules.
So there is place for a UI editor + validation.
On 25 sept. 2010, at 11:24, François Tanguy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> being a end user, I am bit confused with these 2 frameworks: Fame and Magritte.
> There are both meta-meta-models. So what make them different from a conceptual point of view ?
>
> For my models, I would like to have the persistency for free (from Fame) and the UI edition and model validation for free (from Magritte).
>
> Today I must write two times the description of my language (one in Fame and one in Magritte), and it feels like I would need only one description.
>
> Any info on this would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Francois
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
--
Simon
Ok I see your point.
What would be nice is to see how you could have fame and the core of Magritte merged so that
we can use
Fame
and
Magritte could be build/described using Fame
this way we could use Fame serialization
for famix
but also magritte
So may be this is the time to have Magritte 3 based on pragmas and using Fame/magritte core as Magritte3 Core
Stef
>
> Le 25 sept. 2010 à 21:50, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
>
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:20 PM, François Tanguy wrote:
>>
>>> Would it be a good idea to have a bridge between the two ?
>>
>> I do not know what is your scenario?
>
> I would like to edit models in the web browser with seaside components generated with Magritte and save the models using Fame.
>
>>
>>> Like generating magritte descriptions from the Fame pragmas.
>>
>> do you have an example?
>> because you mean describing Magritte in fame?
>
> I am just wondering why I must use two languages to describe a metamodel with constraints.
> If I want to express a language structure I must use Fame (to have package, classes, properties).
> If I want to add constraints I must use Magritte.
> But when I define Magritte descriptions, I feel like I rewrite the same stuff I did in Fame (except for the validation part).
>
>>
>>> Then we could imagine to have a generic editor for a metamodel and serialization... (like in EMF)
>>
>> fame already support the functionality of EMF.
>> I think that Fame should stay a simple metametamodel.
>>
>
> Yes, but it is still missing editing tools compared to EMF, or am I wrong ?
>
>>
>>> I wrote a very basic piece of code that does the transformation from Fame to Magritte in some very specific use case and that is something that is definitely possible.
>>>
>>> What do you think ?
>>
>> I do not know. what is your need?
>
> I want to describe a language only one time and be able to use tools from Fame and Magritte.
> So with a minimal amount of work, I get serialization, edition, validation, code generation.
>
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>>
>>> Le 25 sept. 2010 à 11:49, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
>>>
>>>> here is my summary
>>>> fame is a minimal meta meta model ( 4 or 5 classes): we use it describe other model (such as Famix)
>>>> based on fame you can load and save model.
>>>>
>>>> Magritte is a meta data driven framework.
>>>> you describe specific entity and the tools interpret it.
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:24 AM, François Tanguy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> being a end user, I am bit confused with these 2 frameworks: Fame and Magritte.
>>>>> There are both meta-meta-models. So what make them different from a conceptual point of view ?
>>>>>
>>>>> For my models, I would like to have the persistency for free (from Fame) and the UI edition and model validation for free (from Magritte).
>>>>>
>>>>> Today I must write two times the description of my language (one in Fame and one in Magritte), and it feels like I would need only one description.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any info on this would be appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Francois
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>>>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr
>>>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:20 PM, François Tanguy wrote:
> Would it be a good idea to have a bridge between the two ?
I do not know what is your scenario?
> Like generating magritte descriptions from the Fame pragmas.
do you have an example?
because you mean describing Magritte in fame?
> Then we could imagine to have a generic editor for a metamodel and serialization... (like in EMF)
fame already support the functionality of EMF.
I think that Fame should stay a simple metametamodel.
> I wrote a very basic piece of code that does the transformation from Fame to Magritte in some very specific use case and that is something that is definitely possible.
>
> What do you think ?
I do not know. what is your need?
Stef
>
> Le 25 sept. 2010 à 11:49, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
>
>> here is my summary
>> fame is a minimal meta meta model ( 4 or 5 classes): we use it describe other model (such as Famix)
>> based on fame you can load and save model.
>>
>> Magritte is a meta data driven framework.
>> you describe specific entity and the tools interpret it.
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:24 AM, François Tanguy wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> being a end user, I am bit confused with these 2 frameworks: Fame and Magritte.
>>> There are both meta-meta-models. So what make them different from a conceptual point of view ?
>>>
>>> For my models, I would like to have the persistency for free (from Fame) and the UI edition and model validation for free (from Magritte).
>>>
>>> Today I must write two times the description of my language (one in Fame and one in Magritte), and it feels like I would need only one description.
>>>
>>> Any info on this would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Francois
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pharo-project mailing list
>>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr
>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
here is my summary
fame is a minimal meta meta model ( 4 or 5 classes): we use it describe other model (such as Famix)
based on fame you can load and save model.
Magritte is a meta data driven framework.
you describe specific entity and the tools interpret it.
On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:24 AM, François Tanguy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> being a end user, I am bit confused with these 2 frameworks: Fame and Magritte.
> There are both meta-meta-models. So what make them different from a conceptual point of view ?
>
> For my models, I would like to have the persistency for free (from Fame) and the UI edition and model validation for free (from Magritte).
>
> Today I must write two times the description of my language (one in Fame and one in Magritte), and it feels like I would need only one description.
>
> Any info on this would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Francois
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pharo-project mailing list
> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr
> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On 24 sept. 2010, at 23:19, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
> Hi Simon: print or inspect the result of something like this:
>
> (ConfigurationOfXXX project version: 'xxx') record loadDirective
>
> or if you use groups or packages in the load:
>
> ((ConfigurationOfXXX project version: 'xxx') record: 'Tests') loadDirective
>
> with that you can notice what you need
OK thanks Mariano, I thought there was such a mechanism but I was not sure. However I was not able to find the culprit. And now it loads fine with just the fix for PetitParser config?
>
> cheers
>
> ps: I learn about #record in our own Metacello talk at ESUG with Dale hahahhaha
Well I was taking pictures in Barcelona at the time, so I don't have a good excuse either :)
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr> wrote:
> OK, I just had this problem today, not previously during the week, and I can't find the source.
>
> When updating my Moose image I got:
>
> Loading default of ConfigurationOfMoose... <connection closed>
> Fetched -> Famix-ManifestMf-tg.6 --- http://www.squeaksource.com/Moose --- http://www.squeaksource.com/Moose
> Project: MooseAlgos for Moose default
> Project: PetitParser for Moose default
> Project: Glamour for Petit 2.0-beta.7
> Fetched -> Morphic-MorphTreeWidget-AlainPlantec.88 --- http://www.squeaksource.com/Momo10 ---
> (....)
>
>
> Two strange things going on:
> - PetitParser default requiring Glamour for Petit 2.0-beta.7 (probably a bug when the config was copied to the Moose repo for the 4.0 release. This is now fixed)
> - Morphic-MorphTreeWidget-AlainPlantec.88 got fetched, I have no idea how/which project required this package which dates back to january 2010 (it's not Glamour 2.0-beta.7)
>
>
> Can anyone reproduce this problem, starting from a 4.1 release then updating to default? Or starting fresh and loading default?
>
>
> Dale, I think I have another use case for the Metacello browser, it's being able to debug such a case, by simulating/resolving which versions of a package would actually be loaded, and which project requested this version (in case there are multiple projects also, whether there was a conflict).
>
> --
> Simon
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
Simon
Hi,
being a end user, I am bit confused with these 2 frameworks: Fame and Magritte.
There are both meta-meta-models. So what make them different from a conceptual point of view ?
For my models, I would like to have the persistency for free (from Fame) and the UI edition and model validation for free (from Magritte).
Today I must write two times the description of my language (one in Fame and one in Magritte), and it feels like I would need only one description.
Any info on this would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Francois
OK, I just had this problem today, not previously during the week, and I can't find the source.
When updating my Moose image I got:
Loading default of ConfigurationOfMoose... <connection closed>
Fetched -> Famix-ManifestMf-tg.6 --- http://www.squeaksource.com/Moose --- http://www.squeaksource.com/Moose
Project: MooseAlgos for Moose default
Project: PetitParser for Moose default
Project: Glamour for Petit 2.0-beta.7
Fetched -> Morphic-MorphTreeWidget-AlainPlantec.88 --- http://www.squeaksource.com/Momo10 ---
(....)
Two strange things going on:
- PetitParser default requiring Glamour for Petit 2.0-beta.7 (probably a bug when the config was copied to the Moose repo for the 4.0 release. This is now fixed)
- Morphic-MorphTreeWidget-AlainPlantec.88 got fetched, I have no idea how/which project required this package which dates back to january 2010 (it's not Glamour 2.0-beta.7)
Can anyone reproduce this problem, starting from a 4.1 release then updating to default? Or starting fresh and loading default?
Dale, I think I have another use case for the Metacello browser, it's being able to debug such a case, by simulating/resolving which versions of a package would actually be loaded, and which project requested this version (in case there are multiple projects also, whether there was a conflict).
--
Simon
