On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:22 PM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:

Doru

what about Unit and Assembly

Stef

On 1/7/14 12:17, stepharo wrote:

On 1/7/14 09:45, Tudor Girba wrote:

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?

I like dependency because it express the need to work :) but I'm ok for assembly.

Doru

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@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@free.fr> wrote:

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
_______________________________________________