10 Oct
2007
10 Oct
'07
5:35 p.m.
Good point.
MSE is a subset of EMOF, so all our models can be transformable to
EMOF compliant models without lose of infromation.
The other way round: I only removed stuff not used in Famix, and
beyond that, well .. there are some more constraints on what we can
accept, for example multiple inheritance will have to be flattened
etcetera.
Currently, there is a ch.akuhn.mse.generation.Transformation class
that transforms EMOF compliant models to MSE compliant models.
AA
On 10 Oct 2007, at 13:27 , Frank Buchli wrote:
Hi Adrian
EMOF has the advantage that it is nowadays a quasi standard. Dealing
with a new model makes it easier to realize your new ideas, making
performance optimization, etc. but harder to interact / exchange with
other tools. Consider this while making your decision.
All the best
Frank
Adrian Kuhn wrote:
Dear Moosers,
I was pondering over Famix and found that it only uses 20% of EMOF's
features. As it seems, the E in EMOF is not really standing for
essential :)
What I came up with when porting MSE to Java, is a much simpler
mmmodel.
I documented it on the wiki
http://smallwiki.unibe.ch/moose/mse/msemmmodel/
would be nice to make this the new mmmodel of moose and get rid of
all the EMOF bloat.
by the way, a Java implementation is in its first draft, if you are
interested contact me.
cheers,
AA
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev