10 Oct
2007
10 Oct
'07
10:54 p.m.
In fact I would prefer not to move to a simpler metamodel
or at least make sure that just by using namespace import we can
really swap between
the two metamodels and do not see any difference.
Yes marco I asking myself the same :)
Even if the exercise is fun.
Stef
On 10 oct. 07, at 17:53, Marco D'Ambros wrote:
Hi,
actually I am using EMOF to generate Glorp descriptor in my MetaDB,
but
it is also true that I don't use any of the listed EMOF properties.
I am just wondering why moving to a more simple (but I guess less
general) mmmodel...
cheers
Marco
Adrian Kuhn wrote:
On 10 Oct 2007, at 16:28 , Stéphane Ducasse
wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
I'm confused why are you talking about
famix?
I thought you were talking about Meta.
Famix is meta-described in EMOF, but does only use 20% of what EMOF
can do. For example, we do not use
- multiple inheritance
- other multiplicity than 0..1 or 0..*
- the set and unqiue property of properties
- the id property
- parameters (hence all our operations are equivalent to derived
properties)
- etc...
- ...
Now about msemmmodel, why don't you have
operation (or something
related that would be useful to hook behavior)?
The design decision behind MSE mmmodel is very simple: if a EMOF
feature was not used anywhere in any extensions of Famix, I removed
it. As none of the operations in Famix had any Parameter, all are
equivalent to properties.
cheers,
AA
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev