24 Sep
2011
24 Sep
'11
10:43 p.m.
Hi guys
Is there a reason why we get
#Attribute and not FAMIXAttribute
I do not understand. Do you refer to the name of the MetaDescription? If yes, that is
because the qualified name is 'FAMIX.Attribute', given that it belongs to the
FAMIX package. So, there is no need to prefix the class name.
and/or
super: #FAMIXStructuredEntity
instead of
super: 'FAMIX.StructuredEntity'
Ok, this is pretty much crappy :). #FAMIXStructuredEntity will perform a lookup of the
class in the Smalltalk image. 'FAMIX.StructuredEntity' will perform it in the Fame
meta repository. We should only use symbols because they are also affected by
refactorings. I will create a rule :). So I would
prefer to have something regular
either
#'FAMIX.Attribute' super: #'FAMIX.StructuredEntity'
or
#Attribute super: #StructuredEntity
In fact I would prefer
#'FAMIXAttribute' super: #'FAMIXStructuredEntity
No. It should be:
MSEClass: 'Attribute' super: #FAMIXStructuralEntity Finally I do not get the need to have FAMIX in
front of the second one
because it looks like you hardocde in the anme the package and this is not nice and looks
bad
MSEClass: #Attribute# super: #StructuralEntity package: #FAMIX
Fame already provides a lookup based on the fully qualified name, so we can safely use
that. > MSEClass: #Attribute# super: #StructuralEntity
package: #FAMIX
?
would be better to me.
Then I do not see why you have a string and a symbol this makes everything more complex
See the above explanation.
MSEClass: 'Attribute' super: #FAMIXStructuralEntity
So MSEClass: 'Attribute' super: #FAMIXStructuralEntity does not satisfy me So tell me and
we fix it but once for all.
#FAMIXStructuralEntity points to the name of the Smalltalk class. There is no other way
around it. This is the most robust way of referring to the
superclass because if we rename the Smalltalk class, the pragma will be updated as well
(it's a symbol).
if we rename the class the meta model should be rebuild
So, everywhere we have superclass: we should have the
name of the Smalltalk class.
I find that not really nice.
At least we should change the pragma to be less obscure
FMClass: smalltalkSuperclass:
Now, that we are at it, we should introduce also only
FM3Class: pragma and rely on the default Smalltalk superclass information.
so you means removing the string and the . notation in the superclass ?
Like this we do not have to maintain it at all. Again,
this is something I argued a while ago, but did not get introduced.
Cheers,
Doru