Due to multiple requests, the submission deadline has been extended to July 16.
CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
FAMOOSr 2010 - 4th Workshop on FAMIX and Moose in Reengineering
http://www.moosetechnology.org/events/famoosr2010
Co-located with ICSM 2010, Timisoara, Romania
http://icsm2010.upt.ro/
We solicit experience reports and position papers (2-4 pages, IEEE format). Experience reports will be expected to discuss meta-modeling and software analysis using, but not limited to, FAMIX or Moose. Position papers will be expected to describe new directions and challenges for software analysis infrastructures, like FAMIX or Moose.
Papers may address issues along general themes, including but not limited to:
- Analysis specific meta-models for evolution data, dynamic traces, bug entries, etc...
- Meta-modeling in reengineering tools
- Visualization techniques.
- Analysis techniques: clustering, data mining, machine learning, pattern matching, probabilistic approaches, etc...
- Mechanisms for tool composition and rapid tool prototyping.
- Reusability of research: making research results and tools available to and reusable by the community.
- Persistency and manipulation of models and meta-models.
Submissions are not limited to FAMIX and Moose or to their active users. We welcome any related ideas.
During the workshop, authors are expected to present their ideas using a short format, lasting 3 to 7 minutes, in order to spawn vivid discussions between participants. Presentations with demos are also warmly welcomed (and may be given 10 minutes). More information about this format can be found at:http://moose.unibe.ch/events/famoosr2008/presenterskit
Submissions should be made via Easychair at
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=famoosr2010
Important dates
- submission: July 16 (extended)
- notification: July 23
- workshop: September 17
Organizers:
- Simon Denier, INRIA Lille, France
- Mircea Lungu, University of Lugano, Switzerland
--
Mircea
I just noticed that the semantic of Collection>>ifNotEmpty: has changed in subtle ways between Pharo 1.0 and 1.1
In 1.0
Collection>>ifNotEmpty: aBlock
"Evaluate the given block unless the receiver is empty.
If the block has an argument, eval with the receiver as its argument,
but it might be better to use ifNotEmptyDo: to make the code easier to
understand"
^self isEmpty ifFalse: [aBlock valueWithPossibleArgument: self].
-----> it returns nil if collection is empty
in 1.1
Collection>>ifNotEmpty: aBlock
"Evaluate the given block unless the receiver is empty.
If the block has an argument, eval with the receiver as its argument,
but it might be better to use ifNotEmptyDo: to make the code easier to
understand"
self isEmpty ifFalse: [^ aBlock valueWithPossibleArgument: self].
----> the return is inside the block, now it returns the collection if collection is empty
Apparently all similar code (#ifEmpty:....) has been adapted in the same way.
Of course I would not have stumbled upon this change if it didn't break some of my code which rely on the previous assumption.
Now I would like to understand before making some change in my code. Is it considered bad practice to return nil in such cases? What is the rationale to return yourself instead of nil?
--
Simon
OK, I believe the problem is complex and I can't tell which one is responsible.
I will just try to explain very shortly to see if it rings a bell.
I have a browser with:
- a mondrian presentation
- some text widgets which react to the selection in the mondrian presentation
I also have a menu with actions which reconfigure the mondrian view (like showing labels or not)
Activating a menu item does update the presentation, however it seems like interactions from within the presentation are lost. More specifically:
- it seems like interactions are changed in the mondrian view
- external glamour panes are not updated anymore
--
Simon
Hi all,
In a RectangleShape, it is possible to add text and to specify the alignment with #left, #right, #center.
Is there a way to specify the vertical alignment ?
I would like to have a text on the bottom of a shape.
Thanks.
---
Jannik Laval
Hi all,
i just spotted that in the Moose Panel "all famixclass" appear 2 times (check the attachment)
I loaded Moose evaluating:
Gofer new
squeaksource: 'Moose';
package: 'ConfiguationOfMoose';
load.
(Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfMoose) perform: #loadDefault
into a Pharo-1.1-11400-rc2.
Then i imported an MSE file generated with inFusion 7.2.10.
It happen also installing the sample models.
Should i open an issue?
Mariano
We want to use Moose to get information about Pharo. We plan to define a set of views, queries...
to help us drive the quality of Pharo releases.
Now what I would love to have is a distribution map showing the unused classes,
the classes having a lot of instances....
Would it be possible for you do package the logic of the analysis you did so that we can use it in Moose?
We can talk about that friday.
Stef
Hello,
I implemented a tool that enable to make a kind of demo of Moose: you launch
it on a mooseModel, then select some moose-tools you want to apply on this
model, and all those tools are then group in a report.
Concretly, it's an Arki report configurable with a Wizard.
This MooseDemoReport is available at: www.squeaksource.com/MooseDemoReport.
To test it, have a look at: MooseDemoWizard class >> on:
If you want to use it, feel free to implement your own 'Concerns' in the
MooseDemoReport package and save it in the squeaksource repository, so that
everyone can then use them.
Call for Submissions
ICSM 2010 Tool Demonstrations Track
26th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance
September 12-18, 2010, Timisoara, Romania
http://icsm2010.upt.ro/calls/tool-demos
--------------------
Important dates:
- Submission: July 5, 2010
- Notification: July 27, 2010
- Camera-ready: August 2, 2010
--------------------
The goal of this track is to provide tool demonstrations on topics
related to software maintenance and evolution:
- Experience reports
- Techniques, methods and processes:
- to facilitate and support software maintenance
- to analyze and comprehend software systems
- to specify, design, implement and test evolvable systems
- Maintenance and evolution of multi‐language, multi‐platform and,
network-centric systems
- Model driven software maintenance and evolution
More information about the call for submissions can be found at:
http://icsm2010.upt.ro/calls/tool-demos
Tool Demonstrations Co-Chairs
Tudor Gîrba and Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
Before posting this issue on pharo, I would like to check that I'm not the only one affected.
On my computer, some tests of Moose-Algos-Graph are failing since we went to Pharo 1.1. Same things for our internal test server (they do not appear on hudson though, maybe because hudson does not test moose-algos?)
This was really strange until I noticed that some data structures used by MooseAlgos were missing their trait declaration.
I have something like that in monticello:
MOGraphNode subclass: #MABfsNode
uses: MATEdgeNode - {#previousEdges. #from:edge:}
instanceVariableNames: 'nextEdges firstDepth'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'Moose-Algos-Graph'
But when loading the package, the definition becomes:
MOGraphNode subclass: #MABfsNode
instanceVariableNames: 'nextEdges firstDepth'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'Moose-Algos-Graph'
Notice that the trait declaration is missing, but it seems to only happen when the declaration contains an operation like #-
A declaration without operator loads fine:
MOGraphNode subclass: #MADijkstraNode
uses: MATEdgeNode
instanceVariableNames: 'pathWeight previousEdges nextEdges previousNodes'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'Moose-Algos-Graph'
Can anyone confirm? Because it seems like a strong bug and I'm surprised nobody noticed it before.
--
Simon
Reminder: deadline for submission is 5th of July.
CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS
FAMOOSr 2010 - 4th Workshop on FAMIX and Moose in Reengineering
http://www.moosetechnology.org/events/famoosr2010
Co-located with ICSM 2010, Timisoara, Romania
http://icsm2010.upt.ro/
We solicit experience reports and position papers (2-4 pages, IEEE format). Experience reports will be expected to discuss meta-modeling and software analysis using, but not limited to, FAMIX or Moose. Position papers will be expected to describe new directions and challenges for software analysis infrastructures, like FAMIX or Moose.
Papers may address issues along general themes, including but not limited to:
- Analysis specific meta-models for evolution data, dynamic traces, bug entries, etc...
- Meta-modeling in reengineering tools
- Visualization techniques.
- Analysis techniques: clustering, data mining, machine learning, pattern matching, probabilistic approaches, etc...
- Mechanisms for tool composition and rapid tool prototyping.
- Reusability of research: making research results and tools available to and reusable by the community.
- Persistency and manipulation of models and meta-models.
Submissions are not limited to FAMIX and Moose or to their active users. We welcome any related ideas.
During the workshop, authors are expected to present their ideas using a short format, lasting 3 to 7 minutes, in order to spawn vivid discussions between participants. Presentations with demos are also warmly welcomed (and may be given 10 minutes). More information about this format can be found at: http://moose.unibe.ch/events/famoosr2008/presenterskit
Submissions should be made via Easychair at
http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=famoosr2010
Important dates
- submission: July 5
- notification: July 19
- workshop: September 17
Organizers:
- Simon Denier, INRIA Lille, France
- Mircea Lungu, University of Lugano, Switzerland
