Hi everyone,
As some of you know, I am working on a FAMIX importer for Eclipse
java source files, written in Smalltalk (using our JavaConnect
system). At this moment, the importer creates a FAMIX model with
classes, methods, namespaces and inheritance relations.
Now, I experience some strange behaviour of the Mondrian 'Screen
filling system complexity' visualisation. If you take a look at the
screenshot below, you can see the 'Event' class hierarchy. Well, that
is: a list of 'Event' classes and a hierarchy. The strange thing is
that the nodes in the flat line represent exactly the same entities
as the nodes in the hierarchy.
Maybe it's supposed to be this way? But this only appeared after I
added 'implements' relations to the model using
FamixInheritanceLinks. I verified if the model does not contain
duplicate entities for those classes (which would be an obvious
explanation). Inspecting the entities in the flat line did also
reveal they do have outgoingInheritance links.
So, I'm confused and hope you can shed some light on this :-)
ps: Tudor, I hope you got the importer to work now in Mac Intel?
ps2: For those interested in trying this: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/
~jbrichau/penumbra.html . We're having trouble making JavaConnect run
on Windows, so any help to make it work is appreciated. The problem
is mainly in finding the correct java libraries to load. Idem for
Linux. Or if you can wait long enough, we will be working on an
integration with JNIPort too ;-)
----------------------------
Johan Brichau
johan.brichau(a)uclouvain.be
Hi Sergio,
Nice to hear from you.
We use MOF as a meta-meta-model. FAMIX is an instance of MOF and it
is used as a meta-model. So, when you analyze a program you will get
a model that conforms to FAMIX.
FAMIX is a language independent meta-model, meaning that it is
basically a common denominator of various languages. For example, you
will not get all details of the AST in it, but you will get
invocations (calls between methods) and accesses (from methods to
variables).
A UML-like diagram of the current FAMIX 2.2 can be found at:
http://smallwiki.unibe.ch/moose/famixcore2.2metamodel/
So, if you want to define transformations and generate code, you will
probably need a more detailed model than FAMIX. But, if you just want
to reason about the code without caring much about the AST, than
FAMIX is more suitable.
However, given that Moose works at the level of the meta-meta-model,
it can accommodate other meta-models as well. For example, we have a
meta-model for analyzing dynamic information (Dynamix), historical
information (Hismo) or CVS information (Chronia).
We are now working on FAMIX 3.0. With this occasion we will redefine
some terms. For example, what is now known as FAMIX will become FAMIX-
Core, and we will explicitly define extensions to this Core.
For further questions, we strongly advise to join our moose-dev
mailing list at:
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Cheers,
Doru
On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Sergio Castro wrote:
> Dear MOOSE team,
>
> I am interested in understanding if I can used MOOSE for my research,
> but I am currently a bit confused about a couple of things.
>
> My idea was to use a language independent model of an object oriented
> program, and querying this model for obtaining Intensional Views of
> the
> software. After, I would like to make transformations on this model
> if I
> detect that some constraints over these software views do not hold,
> and
> finally generate source code that reflect the transformations
> accomplished in the model.
>
> My question is if the program representation used by MOOSE is rich
> enough to define over it any kind of software views based on the
> structural relationships of the source code elements the model was
> built
> from. Or in other words, which information from the source code I lost
> when I build my model in MOOSE?
>
> Another issue that confuses me is about FAMIX, from the "The Story of
> Moose" paper written by Nierstrasz, Ducasse and G?rba, it seemed to me
> that the FAMIX model was replaced with a MOF like meta model, but I
> found in the Moose wiki (http://smallwiki.unibe.ch/moose) a comment
> about the development of Famix 3.0. Is then FAMIX still part of MOOSE?
> or I misunderstood and the new MOF like meta model is a reengineered
> version of FAMIX?
>
>
> thanks in advance for any comment or orientation,
>
> Sergio Castro
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose mailing list
> Moose(a)iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose
--
www.iam.unibe.ch/~girbawww.iam.unibe.ch/~girba/blog/
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
Please find attached bugs in FAMIX 2.2
- Chronia.CvsFileVersion.comment has type Smalltalk.Core.Text instead of
primitive String
- Chronia.CvsFileVersion.timestamp has type Smalltalk.Core.Timestamp instead
of some primitive
- Chronia.Author has both name and Name as property, which fucks up code
generation
- Smalltalk.CvsModelRoot should be in package Chronia
- Smalltalk.Hapax package should be top level, not nested
- Smalltalk.Dude package should be top level, not nested
- Opposites do not match: DynaMoose.Alias.variable
- Opposites do not match: FAMIX.Method.activation
- Container must be single-values: Moose.Model.entity
- Opposites do not match: Moose.Model.mooseModel
- Container must be single-values: FAMIX.Package.definedClass
- Missing type: Chronia.Commit.startTime
- Missing type: Chronia.Commit.endTime
- Opposites do not match: FAMIX.AbstractStructuralEntity.accessedByList
- Opposites do not match: DynaMoose.Activation.argument
- May not have more than one container: FAMIX.Namespace
- Container must be single-values: FAMIX.Namespace.class
- Container must be single-values: FAMIX.Namespace.namespace
- Opposites do not match: FAMIX.InheritanceDefinition.superclass
- Opposites do not match: FAMIX.InheritanceDefinition.subclass
- May not have more than one container: FAMIX.Class
- Container must be single-values: FAMIX.Class.attribute
- Opposites do not match: FAMIX.Class.incomingInheritance
- Opposites do not match: FAMIX.Class.accessedByList
- Opposites do not match: FAMIX.Class.outgoingInheritance
- Container must be single-values: FAMIX.Class.method
cheers,
AA
Hi everybody,
I have a question, more of an idea: should closures (or Smalltalk blocks) be
included in the meta-model?
You could see closure as a anonymous function, but with some special
properties.
They are becoming a very used feature in programming languages: Smalltalk,
Lisp, Scheme, Python, Ruby, Javascript and others have closures and even the
next versions of both Java and C# it's announced to have closures.
Any opinions?
Adrian Dozsa
Hi Doru,
I wanted to use the design disharmonies detection implemented in Moose.
Since my trials on both Java and Smalltalk systems failed, I would
like to know what is the development status here.
I saw that most of the identity and collaborative disharmonies rules
are implemented, at least for Java.
However, almost none of them returned a valid result (the metrics
that they are based on seem to return nil instead of a value).
Could you give me some hints on how to use them?
Maybe I'm doing something wrong here, I just tried something like:
aMooseModel allClasses select: [:each | each isBrainClass]
Thanks,
Ricky
There is a nice method in Behavior that is invoked when ever the
annotations of a class's methods change, would be nice to use that to
make Meta more causally connected. Would be nice if someone has time
to do that, refer to
> instanceMethodsChanged
> "One of the receiver's instance methods which has meta
> annotations changed. The method may have been removed,
> or may be about to be added. Because this action may be
> invoked many times, and because the change it reflects
> may not be completed yet, the receiver's response should
> probably be fairly limited (such as flushing a cache) rather
> than something more proactive, such as actively repopulating
> a data structure that records the state of things."
>
> ^self
Maybe that is also useful for you, Andrea.
cheers,
AA
Oops, forgot reply all.
On 26 Sep 2007, at 23:53 , Adrian Kuhn wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2007, at 18:30 , Tudor Girba wrote:
>
>> As for Meta and Hapax, Adrian said that he reserves the right to
>> license them and that we should discuss about it after we get the
>> agreement with the Unibe. But, in a follow up mail he changed his
>> mind and said that "if we come to some nice agreement with Univ its
>> okay to license these two bundles under BSD". I must admit that I am
>> a bit confused, but perhaps this was just another misunderstanding :)
>
> It is the same I wrote in my mail back then
>
>> All these are issues I'd like to be addresses and taken into account
>> when officially (re)licensing Moose now. Personally I would prefer to
>> have a license that allows us to be more specific about what we
>> consider to be fair use. But I am not strictly against BSD as well,
>> it would be even okay for me to license Meta as such if we find to
>> some agreement that ensures fairness for all involved parties
>
> and that still applies.
>
> AA
>
>
>
On 26 Sep 2007, at 16:33 , Orla Greevy wrote:
>>> In my opinion we should aim to be as flexible as the Java world
>>> tools
>>> e.g. Checkstyle, tomcat, etc.
>>
>> I do not understand.
>>
> In the case of the above mentioned tools, they can be used by
> anyone in any context, i.e. commerical or non commerical.
Which are usually under GPL or compatible. GPL has the nice property
that any non-commercial contributer can be sure no one will ever
commercialize his contributions; but still any commercial user can
use it or sell services on top of it, and in case of LGPL even build
products on top of it. My concern as researcher is that BSD does
fully satisfy the interest of non-commercial contributers in the same
way. Maybe that got lost in all the rant with Doru.
AA
