23 Jul
2012
23 Jul
'12
11:19 p.m.
We should discuss about this point particularly. Where are you with your investigations
I have recently written a simple script which is able to load a given MSE file into a
specified moose image, and save everything as a new image.
Sharing such images would save a lot of time to the end-user and is another little step
to having consistent and reproducible analysis results. question: how fast is the moose release cycle ?
We already have a couple of ideas and we think it would be interesting to explore such an
option.
Having all contributed results in a common format would benefit information sharing and
data comparison.
but use is not that one?
I do not get your sentence
Some questions:
- is there any reason to support vervainJ instead of InFamix ? Would it make sense to
support both ?
This is a long discussion. I know that VerveinJ works fine. It is open-soure and
well-maintained.
Maybe Nicolas Anquetil has already done a comparison between the two importers.
- would anybody be interested in sharing the
results of their analyses ? which features are to be expected from such a service ?
For sure, in experimental study, we need to compare different approaches.
When we have coherent data and reproducible experimentation, it is clearly better
Does anybody have any idea about any possible usage of such kind of information ?
you are talking about meta information
In famix 1.0
in the file header there was one entity describing the model.
what we could do is either
- have a separate file in use format (= reuse of parser) containing information and the
file name of the model to which they refer
- or have the information inside the mse model by having an entity representing the
model (we did that in some old moose versions).
Is there any existing data format which could be used
to specify these data (keeping a link to the MSE model entities) ?
Jannik
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Andrea
_____________________________
Andrea Caracciolo -- caracciolo(a)iam.unibe.ch
Software Composition Group
University of Bern
On Jul 21, 2012, at 7:29 PM, jannik.laval wrote:
---
Jannik Laval
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi guys,
Each time we need to do case studies in Moose, we have to select the software
application, in a certain version and probably without all the source code needed. This
results on evaluations that are probably not reproducible.
I think that we need to unify our efforts and share the mse files of our models. With
that, it will be not necessary to generate a FAMIX model each time we need one.
For now, I begun to generate the model from the Qualitas Corpus 'e'
(http://qualitascorpus.com/). There are 486 multiple versions of multiple Java systems.
The mse files are really big (more than 650Mo for Eclipse_SDK3.7). I tried to load the
biggest one in Moose, and it loads ! I just needed to attribute 2Gb of memory in the
info.plist file of Moose 4.6.
I propose to put the files on a server. For all the tar.bz2 files, I need 3.65Gb.
Now, we lack ok at least two pieces of information : (i) the version of verveineJ used
for the extraction. For now, VerveineJ has no version (I took the latest one). (ii) the
version(s) of Moose that can load the file. I tried one mse file with Moose4.6.
We also need a server that can accept all the files.
Any suggestion ?
Jannik
_______________________________________________
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