18 Mar
2009
18 Mar
'09
9:58 a.m.
On 18 mars 09, at 09:28, Bergel, Alexandre wrote:
I have always encountered troubles understanding the
maelstrom
famix2/famix3/fame. Shame on me, I probably did not spend enough
time on reading paper and trying them out.
I removed FAMIXFunction since Simon told me that the core was meant
to not be manually reprogrammed. Since I have no idea how to
describes FAMIXFunction in Fame, I am playing on the safe side.
Actually having FAMIXFunction in the Core is not a problem, as long as
it only contains metadescribed attributes and classes. As Doru says,
the goal is to have a generative and auto-testing core through Fame
export/generation.
Then, for example, methods belonging to FAMIXFunction but not
metadescribed should be class extensions defined in their own package.
However, I would like to keep the FAMIX-Core minimal as I believe it
is quite complete.
Here is the current structure of Famix3 packages
Famix-Core: meta-described entities and attributes
Famix-Implementation: mostly generic class extensions, like helper
methods, which can not be meta-described
Famix-Extensions: quite generic stuff, but does not belong to core,
like metrics, the Visitor...
Famix-Smalltalk: class extensions and classes specific to Smalltalk
model (for example, FAMIXMethod is extended with a #categories
attribute)
Famix-Java: class extensions and classes specific to Java model
Famix-File: an extension to describe a file structure
etc.
My recommendation: do your stuff in your own package, dont think about
the metadescriptions, you can integrate them later once your model has
settled. It will be easier.
Cheers,
Alexandre
On 17 Mar 2009, at 23:46, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
Simon
Hi Alex,
I saw that you removed FAMIXFunction from FAMIX-Core. Is there a
particular reason for this?
But, there is a larger issue here. FAMIX-Core is not meant to be
programmed, but instead it should be generate-able from the MSE
specification of FAMIX. So, basically a test should be to create an
MSE from the descriptions from FAMIX-Core and then regenerate
exactly the same classes back.
Like this, we can make sure that it remains portable and in sync
(via Fame) with implementations in other languages.
To deal with the implementation details, there is a Famix-
Implementation package.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it
cannot be done."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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