Hello everyone,
We now have more than 200 Moose-related publications with new publications coming at a rate of 25-30 publications per year. That is simply great!
It is a real privilege to be part of this.
Cheers,
Doru
p.s. Please take a look at the publications. If you feel that some are added without merit, or some are missing, please let me know and I will correct the situation. You can use the search facility (make sure you use moose-pub as one of the keywords):
http://www.moosetechnology.org/docs/publications/bib?query=moose-pub
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Don't give to get. Just give."
Hi all,
I have known and used moose for some years but now I am stepping into
developing tools with it. So, I had a small experience with the changes in
the model. We developed some code to calculate package metrics and the next
week the code doesn't work. After spending a few hours on debugging and a
helping hand from Jannik, I could resove the problem that came from the
change in parentType. Although the problem was small, it took a newbie like
quite some time to resolve. I knew all the methods regarding metrics
calculation but when it came to meta-model I wasn't too sure what was going
on.
Moreover, soon I am going to start work on Csharp MSE extractor. So, once we
have the mse extractors for different langs, any changes to meta-model would
require some work to align these extractors.
So, my suggestion is that any changes to the FAMIX meta-model should be
considered major because they require quite a bit of effort behind the scene
to align the tools using it.
Hi,
It looks like we finally managed to get Glamour to unregister properly from model announcements (thanks to Henrik and Esteban).
It would be nice to have more tests around this. Jorge started to use his nice meta-engine to provide some fine grained instrumentation so that we can test this in a different way.
In the meantime, let us know if you still have problems with garbage collecting a model (MooseModel or otherwise) after opening a Glamour browser.
This is a critical point in getting Glamour to be used on a larger scale. It would be so great if this would actually work properly :)
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"We cannot reach the flow of things unless we let go."
Hi!
MooseGroup has #sorted: and #sort:
What about keeping just one?
Especially since
MooseGroup>>sort: aBlock
self sorted: aBlock
Cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Hi all,
We are using Moose 4.3 and we have lots of problems due to the metamodel changes from 4.1 to 4.3.
For example all my mse files generated in 4.1 are obsolete in 4.3, but we develop tools in 4.3 not compatible with 4.1.
The situation is not really cool, and the message sent by this problem also.
To solve this problem, I would propose to replace the version 4.3 by a version 5.0.
Like that we can build tools to move from version 4.x to 5.x.
And the message is better.
What is your opinion about these changes and what is the impact on the community ?
Thanks
Jannik
Hi,
I would like to update the publications from the moose webpage. It looks like since 2007 there is a drop in publications. This does not sound correct, and indeed it looks like we mostly only have the SCG publications in there.
Would it be possible to get Moose-related publications from Lille, Lugano, and Santiago?
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
Status: New
Owner: georgega...(a)gmail.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium Component-ExternalTools
New issue 531 by tudor.gi...(a)gmail.com: inFusion should export isWrite in
FAMIXAccess
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=531
If it represents an assignment it should look like:
(FAMIX.Access
(isWrite true)
)
Hi,
I would like to promote the idea of projects in Pharo. The concept is simple: we should build new infrastructures that go beyond small fixes and that require the concerted work of multiple people over a longer period of time.
A project has a clear goal, and is led by someone. That someone is not necessarily the one that writes all the code (like we might tend to do it), but simply one that ensures that the project advances, that the different contributions are integrated, and that things are not left at 90%.
I would like to announce the Glamorous Tool project. The goal of this project is to provide a new set of tools for developing with Pharo. It is to be developed on top of Glamour, and it should address at least the followings:
- Coder (ex-System Browser)
- Debugger
- Inspector
- Playground (ex-Workspace - it's not called Workspace anymore because I would like to encourage people not to "work" there)
- Chaser (senders, implementors and references)
The project spans several topics. For example:
- Glamour support
- Morphic enhancements:
--- Proper TextMorph with keybindings and context sensitiveness
--- Collapsable Panes
--- Scalable tabs
--- Parallel rendering
- Suitable models
--- RPackage
--- Code introspection
--- Debugger model
- Testing
--- Because these tools are so critical, they should be robust
--- OB is a good example for the testing part
- Usability
--- Principle: Spawning a window might be easy, but it is not effective
--- Principle: Uniformity
--- Principle: Less concepts are better than many
- Graphic design of skins and icons
- Weak announcements
- Performance
I will lead it, and you are welcome to participate. The today sprint is a good occasion to take a look. The current code can be found at:
Gofer new
squeaksource: 'glamoroust';
package: 'ConfigurationOfGlamoroust';
load.
(Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfGlamoroust) perform: #loadDefault.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."
Hi all,
I just finished reading 'The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering', which proposes a theory on building and validating visualizations. http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/TSE.2009.67 I think it is an excellent paper and I highly reccomend it.
I have a question, for those that have read it, or know about it. Since this proposes a theory where it should be possible to evaluate a given visualization, do you know of any visualization publication that validates itself in this way (instead of the user study ...)? I think it would be a good way out of the user study issue ...
Also, Alex, this theory implies we need much more shapes in Mondrian, as it is one of the visualization variables where Mondrian only offers a few options :-(
--
Johan Fabry
jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile