4 Dec
2009
4 Dec
'09
12:24 a.m.
Hi Stef,
What is with them? What can we not know about them?
I do not know I was wondering if FAMIX really cover all the entity
that are extracted.
At some points this was not the case
No, but we are talking about two different things :). I was saying
that if I have a meta-model then the importing context dependencies
should be derived from it, and I think we can do a reasonable job with
this approach.
Of course, if we do not have the meta-model implemented, the importing
context is not very useful anyway.
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."
>>>
yes
>>> the design of ImportContext predates the one of FAME and
>>> indeed we should be able to have any metamodel and their
>>> dependency
>>> Now it may happen that we will found some hidden (manually
>>> expressed in the importingcontext and importer) dependency
>>> that are not expressed in the metamodel: famix comment, literal.
>>
>> A related issue is to encode the importing context in the mse.
>> So that we know what is not in the mse.
>> See comment #2 in the issue
>
> Yes we got something a bit like that (more the metamodel) when
> we developed CDIF exhcngae format.
> YOu would send the mmodel and the model.
> Now for the context why not.
I do not understand. What kind of details are we talking about
that cannot be inferred from the meta-model?
extraction of literals, comments, for example
FAMIXComment has a container pointing to FAMIXEntity. In this case,
we will probably need to add all entities as prerequisites.
You have also FAMIXLiteral?