Here's a snippet from my builder method:
views do: [ :d |
act: [ :tree :projects | "change the model." tree update ]
entitled: 'New Project';
Each tree represents a different view on the same data. When the action is
performed, they all need to be updated. I tried replacing `tree update` with
`container update`, but that didn't work.
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Moose-f1310756.html
I am trying to save a moose model into MongoDB, using Voyage (Pharo 7, Moose 8).
My problem is that it is not a tree. So I declared MooseEntity as voyageRoot.
Now, it seems I have a loop into my graph.
Do you have any idea of ho to debug that ?
Responsable Pédagogique Licence Coordonnateur de Projet
IUT Lumière, Université Lumière Lyon 2
+33 4 78 77 43 06
[Apologies for Cross-Posting]
At DISP Lab, at Lyon, France, we have a PhD opening on « Ensuring Interoperability for "smart" information systems". More information are following.
What is important is that all the development will be done using Pharo/Moose.
If you are interested, please contact me by answering this mail.
Ph.D. thesis (CIFRE)
Berger Levrault and DISP Lab, Lyon, France
Title: Ensuring Interoperability for "smart" information systems
Enterprise: Berger Levrault
Research Laboratory: DISP Lab
Where: Lyon, France
Recruitment date: As soon as possible
Application deadline: As soon as possible
Function: 3 years PhD candidate position in Berger Levrault (CDI). The position will be part time between Berger Levrault and DISP Lab.
Research topic : data interoperability, application exchange protocols, service-oriented architecture, event architecture, semantics, monitoring.
The need for sharing, exchanging and promoting information from information systems is constantly increasing and now represents a major concern in the various reforms of the local public sector (consolidation of local authorities, implementation of in place in 2016 Hospital Group Territory, Digital Republic). It is therefore essential to design "platforms" capable of providing answers to the rationalisation and simplification of data exchanges between software applications and with the outside world to promote and simplify the application of all these reforms.
In addition, service-oriented architectures and event architectures (SOA, EDA) are mature and widely used. At Berger-Levrault, their implementation ensures the scalability and maintainability of solutions. These architectures are characterised by the flexibility and the loose coupling of the subsystems that compose them (ie services, applications, IS ...) and rely on several means (Hohpe & Woolf, 2004) to route the data within this network of systems communicating. At this stage of maturity, we observe that these data exchanges are operational and meet the requirements of interoperability between heterogeneous systems (Leal, 2019).
Nevertheless, the number of standards recognised and used by the French public sector, the privileged sector of Berger-Levrault, increases the level of interconnection difficulties (Kurniawan & Ashari, 2015) of the different solutions developed by Berger-Levrault. This is all the more remarkable when it comes to communicating with external solutions or platforms (partners and / or competitors). This multiplicity of exchanges and types of exchanges generates a great deal of complexity and highlights the need to master the exchange system as effectively as possible. Berger Levraut today lacks visibility on existing exchanges and mechanisms to evaluate them (Leal, Guédria, & Panetto, 2019) which complicates the detection of dysfunctions and the discovery of their origins.
Moreover, it is essential for the Berger-Levrault applications to be able to adapt to the new rules and standards while continuing to integrate the dematerialization of the public service. The evolution of these modalities has an almost systematic impact on the exchange of data put in place to ensure interoperability. Hence the need to build flexible and scalable exchange architectures and to follow the evolution of these exchanges.
These transformations imply a large volume of data exchanged and subject to variations that can be strong during periods of "high attendance" such as elections by electronic vote. The very nature of exchanges can be affected especially with the multiplicity of connected objects (Buyya & Dastjerdi, 2016). These are increasingly used by public institutions for the benefit of the management of city facilities or user services. The increase in volumes of data exchanged therefore implies the implementation of exchange architectures that are able to support the load but also the great variability of the types and frequencies of data production. This requires distributed architectures (in infrastructure and flow), adaptable or even self-adaptable (Gascon-Samson et al 2015) to promote the system's resistance to faults while avoiding potential congestion phenomena.
Based on this reflection, a research project was conducted in partnership by Berger-Levrault and the DISP laboratory (Amokrane et al., 2018). These early works have identified a set of scientific and technical barriers:
• Lack of visibility on existing interoperability exchanges. Indeed, the current exchanges are not traced and the existing monitoring mechanisms focus mainly on low level information, such as the performance of the infrastructure or the use of the memory, without correlation with business information. In addition, few methods for evaluating interoperability are concerned with the effective evaluation (a posteriori of the implementation) of the interoperability of the data, and few of them are tooled (Leal, Guédria, & Panetto, 2019).
• The complexity of trade maintenance. This is due to the lack of traceability of the exchanges, on the one hand, and that of the evolution of the exchange architecture configurations on the other hand. This complicates the identification of failures or dysfunctions and the analysis of their causes, and poses difficulties for the setting up of mechanisms of alerts or significant notifications. In addition, the lack of capitalisation of information relating to trade does not allow to consider a forecast maintenance.
• The development of the different modules of the exchange system is manual and the remediation of malfunctions is done in an ad hoc manner. In addition to the cost of development and correction that this implies, this does not meet the responsiveness requirements of some business areas. Hence the need to build adaptable exchange systems using dynamic interoperability hubs (Agostinho, et al., 2016).
The objective of this thesis proposal is to produce an approach to the implementation cycle of application exchanges, from design to maintenance, which will enhance the reliability and resilience of the interoperability exchange system. The solution will ultimately orchestrate all the application and service exchanges to ensure optimisation of the use of software and infrastructure resources of public institutions.
To meet the needs in terms of interoperability, the work to be carried out is articulated in two axes that we structure as follows:
- A flexible architecture for the implementation of interoperability. Here we consider the basic functionalities reflecting the activities necessary for the establishment of the means of interoperability.
- A reflexive architecture for managing interoperability at a meta-level. This axis relates to setting up means of administration, monitoring and maintenance of the exchange network set up for interoperability.
The work must also incorporate the concepts of security, scalability and usability. Requirements to be met when developing any solution to lift the locks and meet the objectives of this thesis work.
Agostinho, C., Ducq, Y., Zacharewicz, G., Sarraipa, J., Lampathaki, F., Poler, R., & Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2016). Towards a sustainable interoperability in networked enterprise information systems: Trends of knowledge and model-driven technology. Computers in Industry, 79, 64 - 76. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.001
Al-Dhuraibi, Y., Paraiso, F., Djarallah, N., & Merle, P. (2017). Elasticity in cloud computing: state of the art and research challenges. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, (pp. 430-447).
Amokrane, N., Laval, J., Lanco, P., Derras, M., & Moalla, N. (2018). Analysis of Data Exchanges, Contribution to Data Interoperability Assessment. 9th international Conference on Intelligent Systems 2018. Madeira, Portugal.
Andary, J. F., & Sage, A. P. (2010). The role of service oriented architectures in systems engineering. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 9(1), 47-74.
Belfadel, A., Laval, J., Cherifi, C., & Moalla, N. (2018). Towards service orchestration through software capability profile. I-ESA Interoperability for Enterprise Systems and Applications 2018. Berlin, Germany.
Bernus, P., Goranson, T., Gøtze, J., Jensen-Waud, A., Kandjani, H., Molina, A., . . . Turner, P. (2016). Enterprise engineering and management at the crossroads. Computers in Industry, 79, 87 - 102. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.010
Buyya, R., & Dastjerdi, A. V. (2016). Internet of Things: Principles and paradigms. Elsevier.
Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Brambilla, M., & Gérard, S. (2017). Cognifying model-driven software engineering. Federation of International Conferences on Software Technologies: Applications and Foundations (pp. pp. 154-160). Springer.
Chappell, D. (2004). Enterprise Service Bus. : O'Reilly Media, Inc.
Cheung, A. K., & Jacobsen, H. A. (2010). Load balancing content-based publish/subscribe systems. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS).
Chhun, S., Moalla, N., & Ouzrout, Y. (2016). QoS ontology for service selection and reuse. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 27(1), 187-199.
Crosby, M., Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., & Kalyanaraman, V. (2016). Blockchain technology: Beyond bitcoin. Applied Innovation, 2(6-10).
Curry, E. (2004). Message-oriented middleware, Middleware for communications,.
Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U., Glück, R., Vandevoorde, D., & Veldhuizen, T. (2000). Generative programming and active libraries. Generic Programming (pp. pp. 25-39). Berlin, Heidelberg.: Springer.
Erl, T. (2005). Service-oriented architecture: concepts, technology, and design. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference.
Fahad, M., Moalla, N., & Bouras, A. (2012). Detection and resolution of semantic inconsistency and redundancy in an automatic ontology merging system. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 39(2), 535-557.
Fahad, M., Moalla, N., Bouras, A., Abdul Qadir, M., & Farukh, M. (2011). Towards Classification of Web Ontologies for the Emerging Semantic Web. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 17(7), 1021-1042.
Fülöp, L. J., Tóth, G., Rácz, R., Pánczél, J., Gergely, T., Beszédes, A., & Farkas, L. (2010). Survey on complex event processing and predictive analytics. the Fifth Balkan Conference in Informatics, (pp. pp. 26-31).
Gascon-Samson, J., Garcia, F. P., Kemme, B., & Kienzle, J. (2015). Dynamoth: A scalable pub/sub middleware for latency-constrained applications in the cloud. In 2015 IEEE 35th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems , (pp. pp. 486-496).
Gokhale, A., Schmidt, D. C., Natarajan, B., & Wang, N. (2002). Applying model-integrated computing to component middleware and enterprise applications. Communications of the ACM, (pp. 65-70).
Hachicha, M., Moalla, N., Fahad, M., & Ouzrout, Y. (2015). Performance assessment architecture for collaborative business processes in BPM-SOA based environments. International journal of Data & Knowledge Engineering, 105, 73-89.
Hohpe, G., & Woolf, B. (2004). Enterprise integration patterns: Designing,building, and deploying messaging solutions. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Khare, S., Sun, H., Zhang, K., Gascon-Samson, J., Gokhale, A., Koutsoukos, X., & Abdelaziz, H. (2018). Scalable edge computing for low latency data dissemination in topic-based publish/subscribe. In 2018 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC) (pp. pp. 214-227). IEEE.
Kurniawan, K., & Ashari, A. (2015). Service orchestration using enterprise service bus for real-time government executive dashboard system. 2015 International Conference on Data and Software Engineering (ICoDSE), (pp. 207-212). Yogyakarta. doi:10.1109/ICODSE.2015.7436999
Laval, J., Cherifi, C., & Cheutet, V. (2018). Towards the measurement of Enterprise Information Systems agility to support EIS improving projects. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 11(3):222–246.
Leal, G. D. (2019). Support à la décision pour l'analyse de l'interopérabilité des systèmes dans un contexte d'entreprises en réseau. (Doctoral dissertation, Université de Lorraine).
Leal, G., Guédria, W., & Panetto, H. (2019). Interoperability Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review. Computers in Industry (In Press).
Luckham, D. C. (2011). Event processing for business: organizing the real-time enterprise. John Wiley & Sons.
Mallek, S. (2012). Contribution au développement de l’interopérabilité en entreprise : vers une approche anticipative de détection de problèmes d’interopérabilité dans des processus collaboratifs.
Object Management Group. (2006). Méta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification.
Panettoa, H., Zdravkovicc, M., Jardim-Goncalvesd, R., Romeroe, D., Cecilg, J., & Mezgárh, I. (2016). New perspective for the future interoperable enterprise systems. Computers in Industry, s.l. : Elsevier, 79, 47-63. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2015.08.001
WSO2. (2015). The Evolution of Integration: A Comprehensive Platform for a Connected Business. White Paper. Récupéré sur http://wso2.com/
Responsable Pédagogique Licence Coordonnateur de Projet
IUT Lumière, Université Lumière Lyon 2
+33 4 78 77 43 06