Hi Stef,
> 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
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
FAMIXComment has a container pointing to FAMIXEntity. In this case, we will probably need to add all entities as prerequisites.
You have also FAMIXLiteral?
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."