13 Apr
2009
13 Apr
'09
11:30 a.m.
This is what I guess yes. MooseEntity defines a variable state. This
is what you refer to.
But there are still many iv in the hierarchy. It is early to talk
about design now. Soon I will try to load Linux into Moose. Problems
will appear by themselves.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On 11 Apr 2009, at 13:51, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Alex,
In VW, we dealt with the state explosion problem by delegating state
access from AbstractEntity to EntityState. There are two subclasses
of this state:
- DefaultEntityState implements a dictionary for instance variables
used for caching or for properties (like NOM).
- MinimalEntityState implements nothing.
We also combined the state access with lazy initializers.
The idea is that the main model is implemented via instance
variables, but all the rest are delegated to the EntityState. In
particular, for caches or for derived attributes you do not always
want to allocate an instance variable. So, for example
FAMIXGlobalVariable might not need a comments iv, or an
incomingInvocations.
Another useful usage of the EntityState implementation is that we
can easily extend the state of an entity from other packages. At
least in VW, the there is no good support for state extension so
this way of extending is the only possibility.
Cheers,
Doru
On 11 Apr 2009, at 11:15, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Hi Doru,
We point here the finger on a slightly bigger problem, scalability.
Currently CAVariable has no instance variable. However it inherits
14 instance variables from the FAMIX framework.
CAModule defines 7 variables, and inherits 17 variables.
Before to have CA* classes an extension of FAMIX, loading the
complete linux kernel produced a squeak image of ~ 500 Mb. I
haven't tried since CA* classes are subclass of FAMIX, but an
explosion in size may waste the party.
By having such subclasses, I can always to change, even
temporarily, the superclass to meet extreme scalability requirement.
Right.
Thanks Doru,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev You should use the FAMIXFunction. I know that
Simon removed it,
but it should be there in the Core.
I do not remember, maybe I was the one who removed it on a
misunderstanding.
-
CAModule subclass of FAMIXScopingEntity
Hmm. Isn't a CAModule the same as FAMIXPackage?
- CAVariable subclass of FAMIXGlobalVariable
What is the difference between the two? An
instance of CAModule is intended to describe a C Module,
instance being generated from a C file. I think this should be
the right way to do.
On the other hand, there are FAMIXFolder and FAMIXFile. Ideally,
a C file should be seen as a file _and_ as a module. The class
FAMIXFile contains useful methods, that I would like to use on a
CAModule. But having one instance of CAModule and one instance of
FAMIXFile per .c file is clearly suboptimal.
FAMIXFile and Folder denote structural things, and have no
semantics. CAModule has semantics in a similar way a Package has.
If you want to attach a file to it, just have the sourceAnchor
point to the file.