Re: [Moose] a question about MOOSE - Moose-dev

22 Oct 2007

Hi Sergio,

Nice to hear from you.

We use MOF as a meta-meta-model. FAMIX is an instance of MOF and it  
is used as a meta-model. So, when you analyze a program you will get  
a model that conforms to FAMIX.

FAMIX is a language independent meta-model, meaning that it is  
basically a common denominator of various languages. For example, you  
will not get all details of the AST in it, but you will get  
invocations (calls between methods) and accesses (from methods to  
variables).

A UML-like diagram of the current FAMIX 2.2 can be found at:
http://smallwiki.unibe.ch/moose/famixcore2.2metamodel/

So, if you want to define transformations and generate code, you will  
probably need a more detailed model than FAMIX. But, if you just want  
to reason about the code without caring much about the AST, than  
FAMIX is more suitable.

However, given that Moose works at the level of the meta-meta-model,  
it can accommodate other meta-models as well. For example, we have a  
meta-model for analyzing dynamic information (Dynamix), historical  
information (Hismo) or CVS information (Chronia).

We are now working on FAMIX 3.0. With this occasion we will redefine  
some terms. For example, what is now known as FAMIX will become FAMIX- 
Core, and we will explicitly define extensions to this Core.

For further questions, we strongly advise to join our moose-dev  
mailing list at:
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Cheers,
Doru

On Oct 22, 2007, at 10:57 AM, Sergio Castro wrote:

...
  Dear MOOSE team,

 I am interested in understanding if I can used MOOSE for my research,
 but I am currently a bit confused about a couple of things.

 My idea was to use a language independent model of an object oriented
 program, and querying this model for obtaining Intensional Views of  
 the
 software. After, I would like to make transformations on this model  
 if I
 detect that some constraints over these software views do not hold,  
 and
 finally generate source code that reflect the transformations
 accomplished in the model.

 My question is if the program representation used by MOOSE is rich
 enough to define over it any kind of software views based on the
 structural relationships of the source code elements the model was  
 built
 from. Or in other words, which information from the source code I lost
 when I build my model in MOOSE?

 Another issue that confuses me is about FAMIX, from the "The Story of
 Moose" paper written by Nierstrasz, Ducasse and G?rba, it seemed to me
 that the FAMIX model was replaced with a MOF like meta model, but I
 found in the Moose wiki (http://smallwiki.unibe.ch/moose) a comment
 about the development of Famix 3.0. Is then FAMIX still part of MOOSE?
 or I misunderstood and the new MOF like meta model is a reengineered
 version of FAMIX?

 thanks in advance for any comment or orientation,

 Sergio Castro

 _______________________________________________
 Moose mailing list
 Moose(a)iam.unibe.ch
 https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose 
--
www.iam.unibe.ch/~girba
www.iam.unibe.ch/~girba/blog/

"Being happy is a matter of choice."