30 Nov
2007
30 Nov
'07
5:24 p.m.
Me, I understood :)
Currently you can not do what you want. Please go ahead and fix this!
It would be nice to have all those "all of kind" selectors like
allClasses on both Model and Group instead of Model only. Maybe we
can make a common superclass for Group and Model to fix that, if
not ... dream of traits and implement it using a state / strategy /
delegator pattern.
Also when you are fixing this, please also fix that annoying fact
that these "all of kind" selectors have to be meta-described and
implemented by hand. It would be much nice if the Model and Group
provide automatically an "all of kind" selector for each available
MetaDescription.
cheers,
AA
On 30 Nov 2007, at 16:01 , Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
Hmm. That is an interesting question, but I am not sure about the use
case.
At this moment, groups are targeted to modeling behavior for known
types of elements. That is if you have a collection of classes we
define the behavior in ClassGroup.
On the other hand, a model is made for storage, and for providing a
start for navigation.
It seems to me like what you want is to take a model and the filtering
result to be another model instead of group. But, I did not
understand exactly what the use case is. Could you elaborate some
more?
Doru
On Nov 30, 2007, at 2:27 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
Hi doru
is there a way to convert a model into a group?
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Yesterday is a fact.
Tomorrow is a possibility.
Today is a challenge."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev