[Moose-dev] Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS

From: Simon Denier &lt;Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr&gt; Date: 24 juin 2010 18:21:34 HAEC To: Related to the development of Moose and other related tools &lt;moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch&gt; Cc: Simon Denier &lt;Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr&gt; Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Re: Moose for SAS Hi Ross It's true that the metamodeling tools in Moose seem crude compared to what exist elsewhere, but that's because we spend much more time using metamodels in new tools than building metamodels :) Here is the procedure when you need to define a completely new metamodel. You can still make mistake when defining the metamodel but it eliminates most redundancy. Once you have defined your metamodel, a set of lint rules can be run to check some aspects of the metamodel (see below) The essential pragma documentation is here (should be integrated in the book) http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/FameMetaDescriptions Also, a good rule of thumb is to have MooseEntity as root instead of Object, it facilitates integration with Moose tools. 1) Metamodel declaration For the example below: - Create class RPGDragon from a class browser - add (class-side) RPGDragon class>>annotation <MSEClass: #Dragon super: #Object> <package: #RPG> Notice I just define the method with pragmas, I don't add any code in the body for now. For each attribute, I need to define the accessor (the getter, not the setter): - define RPGDragon>>hoard <MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper><multivalued> (same thing, method decl + pragma, no code) No need to add the initialize, it will be defined by the generator. 2) To generate the implementation, do: MooseModel generateClassesFrom: {RPGDragon. RPGHero. RPGWall} "collection of classes defining the metamodel" It should open a preview window, where you can see which method will be defined/overridden by the generator. You can always tap Cmd-x to remove the selected definition (in case you are doing some incremental metamodel definition). You can repeat the generation step as much as you want, provided you understand it will overwrite existing methods. It works like a charm if you are doing your own metamodel. If you need to extend (as in class extension, not the Java extend for inheritance) some existing Famix classes with new attributes, you should be a bit more careful. Actually, when I need to extend an existing metamodel with a few attributes, I just define the attributes directly in the Smalltalk way (with pragmas AND method body). It's fast to do. 3) optionally, check that your metamodel is correct with lint rules (especially soundness of opposite relationships): can be done from the meta browser... On 16 juin 2010, at 22:36, Ross Boylan wrote: -- Simon