1 Jul
2014
1 Jul
'14
9:45 a.m.
Hi,
I thought a bit about the terms "Project" and "Dependencies". Given
that it
is likely that these terms will be used in other contexts outside of our
refactoring project, perhaps we could spend a bit of time to tune them.
I think both Project and Dependencies are highly overloaded terms and
because of that it will be easy to create confusion. For example, imagine
this sentence:
"we are working on a project to refactor the dependencies from a project
configuration to make it contain only depencency configurations".
So, I would like to propose another set:
"Project" -> "Assembly"
"Dependencies" -> "Structure/Structural"
With the new terms, this would become:
"we are working on a project to refactor the dependencies from an assembly
configuration to make it contain only structural configurations".
What do you think?
Doru
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Stef,
I did not have enough time to follow in details the conversation. I will
try again in a couple of days, so in the meantime, please take my reply as
a draft :).
I like the distinction between "Project" and "Dependencies". Also,
any
Project configuration should be seen as a convenience. In these terms, the
ConfigurationOfMoose has to become a Project configuration.
Every engine we have, except for Moose Core, has its own configuration,
and most of them are pretty much a Project configuration. So, from this
point of view, anyone can easily build his own Project using them.
When I mentioned the MooseEngines configuration, I referred to a Project
configuration to be included in the ConfigurationOfMoose that we support as
a whole. At this moment, this should include the following:
- Roassal2 & co
- MooseAlgos
- PetitParser
- Fame + Metanool
- Glamour
- MooseCore (this does not exist yet)
- XMLReader
The term engine comes from this diagram:
http://www.themoosebook.org/book/introduction/nutshell
Then, we should have a ConfigurationOfFAMIX that includes FAMIX entities +
extensions, importers. I see it as a Dependencies configuration.
Then, we should have ConfigurationOfMooseFinder which includes some basic
tools like the MooseFinder and the MetaBrowser. This is a Dependency
configuration. On top of that we should also have a
ConfigurationOfFAMIXFinder that depends on ConfigurationOfFAMIX and
ConfigurationOfMooseFinder and that includes all the visualizations and the
ui extensions. This will be a bit hairy to do but I think it would be worth
it.
If we move in this direction, the ConfigurationOfMoose will finally become
empty of explicit Monticello packages.
Cheers,
Doru
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:12 PM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
Doru
I have the impression that there is not one single MooseEngines
configuration and that we will end up in the same
fat configuration. Because may be we want petitParser may be Smacc may be
both or none and just XML.
So
I have one hypothesis: if "dependencies" configuration are handled at
the package level it should be easier to build
as many as we want as "Project" configuration
Now the experience I would like to do is the following:
- create one dependencies configuration for each package (this
configuration should be as small as possible)
- repo
- dependencies to projects
- dependencies to package
- then we define a couple of "useful" project cofniguration One being
moose IDE.
- group such configurations into a MooseMetacelloConfiguration
repositories
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"