8 Nov
2011
8 Nov
'11
8:59 a.m.
On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
FAMIX-Smalltalk should be for the Smalltalk specific
FAMIX extensions and entities.
The way to link to the Smalltalk image is another issue. At the moment it should get into
FAMIX-Implementation.
I thought the same but this is really funny that there was no code to get Smalltalk
entities from FAMIX ones.
showing probably that we do not use moose even on our own system, sadly.
So we will publish the changes.
BTW do you have a " forward compatibility package" where we can add fixes done
in 1.4 when we are working in 1.3?
Stef
Cheers,
Doru
On 7 Nov 2011, at 23:31, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Thanks this is what I thought but I forgot
everything.
BTW there are some broken method in FamixNameResolver and we started to add two three
method to be able to reach compiled method and class from famixMethod and famixClass.
in which packages do we put that?
Because this is more in FAMIX-Smalltalk than in FAMIX-implementation but this is really
related to how to reach the smalltalk code.
Stef
On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:24 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"The coherence of a trip is given by the clearness of the goal."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi,
Indeed, a long time ago (some 5+ years) the uniqueName was essential for storing the
model management. In the meantime, it is no longer the case.
The mooseName is just a key that if it is unique can be used to easily query a group. If
it is not unique, then you just do not benefit from the by name lookup mechanism, but you
can still continue to store your entities in a group and have the group behave like a
normal collection.
Cheers,
Doru
On 7 Nov 2011, at 23:14, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On Nov 7, 2011, at 10:37 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7 Nov 2011, at 14:05, Usman Bhatti wrote:
>
>> Hi guys
>>
>> We are adding Author to Moose as an experience to learn how to extend moose.
>> In the past, for a moose entity with a unique name we were using the uniqueName
as mooseID
>> What is the status now?
>
> I do not understand the question. mooseName is not essential for storage, but it can
be used to retrieve an element from a group based on it.
long time ago uniqueName was used as a mooseId and I was wondering if we should introduce
a unique naming schema for new entity but this is not the case.
>
>> For example we would to make sure that author can be retrieved by their name
>>
>> mooseModel entityNamed: 'me'
>> and that we do not have conflict with other Moose entity.
>
> Then, make it unique :). For example: 'Author - me'.
Yes
> But, you would not want to use entityNamed on the whole model because you might end
up having to lookup throughout millions of objects. Instead, you better use it on the
group of authors:
Sure this is not the idea. In fact we are building a moose demo and as well practicing
with usman.
> mooseModel allAuthors entityNamed: 'me'.
ok
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Live like you mean it."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Quality cannot be an afterthought."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev