5 Dec
2007
5 Dec
'07
11:30 a.m.
On Dec 4, 2007, at 08:13 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On 3 déc. 07, at 22:52, Tudor Girba wrote:
Actually, only to reuse implementation.
But in another hand it is always good to have a simple/user-friendly
meta-model.
If you see that the only difference between Java packages(namespaces)
and Smaltalk packages is the scoping, we can thus mapping Java
namespaces to FAMIXPackage in the case that FAMIXContainer has the
property #scope {boolean}.
However we still need FAMIXNamespace because in VW we have Packages
and Namespaces.
In any case, FAMIXPackage should not be a subclass of
FAMIXScopingEntity, but simply a direct subclass of FAMIXContainerEntity
Hi,
We always mapped Java packages on FAMIXNamespaces. Namespaces can be
nested. Like Johan said, FAMIXNamespace should be used for entities
that provide name scoping. We never used the FAMIXPackage until now
for Java, but I like the suggestion of Johan to map jar files on
them.
Why do you say that you would want to map Java Package on
FAMIXPackage? Only to reuse implementation, or are there other
reasons?
I had the impression that we do not use the model. So
this is
difficult to say something.
I do not really deeply understand what is a scopable entity because
so far I did not write
a analyser actually using a scope :). So besides joking a bit to
stress my point
I had the impression that I do not really know if scope is the key
difference between namespace
and package.
As for modeling references, I think I start to
like the solution of
Hani and Adrian to have a Container superclass and to put all these
transitive methods in there.
Yes in fact traits are missing. :)
Cheers,
Doru
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi the list
could you react on this email?
Because the question of transitive relationship is important.
Stef
On 27 nov. 07, at 15:29, Hani ABDEEN wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know
her."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi all,
in the attachement you find what it seems to be a solution to what
you ask Stephane:<navigationSolution.pdf>no?
bests
hani
On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:58 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
> On 26 nov. 07, at 09:09, Johan Brichau wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In the importer I wrote, I have the following mappings:
>>
>> * Java packages -> Famix namespaces (Simply because java packages
>> have control over name scoping).
>> * Java jar files -> Famix packages (it's the closest thing that
>> corresponds to any 'packaging' thing in Java).
>>
>> I think it's strange to map Java packages onto Famix packages..
>> Just my 2 cents ;-)
>
> Oops. I think that I would like to be much clever and know the
> answer. It seems that
> I will start to work on package and see how it goes. I have the
> impression that from a
> scenario point of view, I want to see how a class refer/is
> referenced
> by other classes.
> and this also at the level of the packages. so the scoping of the
> container is important
> now this would push me to put java package into namespace but to
> analyse I would like the
> inverse.
> So please help me.
>
> Stef
>
>>
>> Johan
>>
>> ps: I will be looking at using the existing Eclipse importer
>> directly
>> from JavaConnect/Penumbra too.
>>
>>
>> On 25 Nov 2007, at 16:25, Toon Verwaest wrote:
>>
>>>> I thought about it and I would like to have
>>>>
>>>> java package -> extracted as package
>>>> smalltalk package -> as package
>>>> smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
>>>>
>>>> Is it what you had in mind?
>>>
>>> I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java
>>> either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but
>>> unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
>>>
>>> Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from
>>> java
>>> packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and
>>> write
>>> code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important
>>> because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
>>>
>>> What is your opinion about the matter?
>>> @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
>>>
>>
>> ----------------------------
>> Johan Brichau
>> johan.brichau(a)uclouvain.be
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev