26 Nov
2016
26 Nov
'16
2:32 p.m.
Hi,
Exactly. For example, MultivalueLinks that model the bidirectional relationships in Fame
work at the Pharo level and they do not care about type. The static information is
actually only meaningful when we generate code.
Perhaps one option would be to have some sort of optional types for the scenario in which
someone would like to maintain these types. Or maybe we find another solution.
That makes sense. That is why I said that I am interested to spend effort :).
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"What we can governs what we wish."
On Nov 26, 2016, at 2:02 PM, stepharo
<stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote:
Hi doru
I think I am missing a part of the picture. What do you mean by “stealing"?
Hi,
As I mentioned at ESUG, I am really happy to see this effort, and I will support it.
Modeling is an important piece in Moose, and being more flexible at creating new models is
a significant added value given that Moose. Please keep me in the loop.
I am particularly interested in the object model of the meta-meta-model, and in the
mapping to the Pharo classes that contain the implementation of the meta-model. I believe
a Traits-based model would work well (I will try to list my ideas of how this could work
later).
Using Slots is definitely something we already should have done in Fame, and I think it
will work very well at least on the implementation level of the meta-model.
About syntaxes, I have less predilection for those, but I understand why they can be
appealing. I believe that we should first favor Pharo, and only afterwards other DSLs. For
example, if we insist of having the meta-model code separately, I believe that we should
be able to produce the meta-description also through a fluent API (so, the fluent API is
one of the syntaxes). Still, if we express the meta-model separately from the meta-model
implementation, the question is remains about how we do the mapping.
I kind of agree. Now I do not want to people feel that we still their ideas and that
they get stuck with their syntaxes. About types, I
also disagree with the comment from Guillaume :). One place where types can be relevant is
when producing interfaces for editing objects, but I think that that does not have to be
the main driver of the design of the new meta-meta-model. The only thing that I think is
important when it comes to types is to allow us to reproduce the basic meta-model
implementation in other languages that do rely on rigid static types. For example, right
now, Fame generates the relations implementation using this information.
Yes there is a difference between saying
- the type of "to" of this relation is Container
- the type of to of this relation is the class of the object that will be the to
of the relation
based on the instantiation of the relation.
It is like anchor-type. you may want to say
this variable is the same type as this one or the same type as whaeveter.
and not hardcode the type once for all. In any case, I
do not necessarily have a predefined solution in my head, but I do have requirements. And
I would like to spend effort on this at least at the level of feedback and prototyping.
Ok we do not have either a predefined solution.
Now we do not want to focus on interexchange constraints more on empowering our
infrastructure.
Cheers,
Doru
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ On Nov 26, 2016, at 9:58 AM, stepharo
<stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote:
Hi
What we will try to do with Pavel, alain, anne and me (probably nicolas) in contact with
Peter starting january is the following
Define another metametamodel (trying to use Pharo + Slot for relationships +
invariant = Pharom)
- this metameta should be able to have different syntaxes
OpenPonk, Express, Pharo
- This metameta should does not need types :) sorry I did not get at all
the remark of guillaume
And in particular there is a difference between a static type and a
concrete type systems.
Take Famix 3 -> Famix3NG and break it appart to get composable pieces
and use Pharom to describe FamixNG
We are open to discussions but to a certain extent.
Then we will work on optimise for space.
In addition we will do a call to collect all the points that should be improve in
Moose.
We will
collect
prioritze
and tackle them
Stef
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com
"Yesterday is a fact.
Tomorrow is a possibility.
Today is a challenge."