18 Mar
2009
18 Mar
'09
1:41 p.m.
I did not want my previous mail to sound like
scolding, I just
wanted to start the discussion on what the expectations are :).
I agree on this. No problem at all. I should have added a :-)
Simon summarized it quite nicely.
However, coming back to FAMIXFunction, I think that it should be in
the core. The reason is that we sell FAMIX-Core as the core of a
language independent meta-model. So, by default the basic concepts
should be in, and FAMIXFunction is quite important for languages
like Lisp or C/C++.
I agree on this.
Simon, do we spent few minutes this afternoon on this?
Cheers,
Alexandre
On 18 Mar 2009, at 10:05, Alexandre Bergel wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
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
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Some battles are better lost than fought."
_______________________________________________
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
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
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.
I prefer this, but I might need them of the browser...
I will probably come back on this point soon.
Alexandre
Cheers,
Alexandre
On 17 Mar 2009, at 23:46, Tudor Girba wrote:
> 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
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev