16 Sep
2013
16 Sep
'13
9:19 a.m.
Hi,
I was at ESUG last week and I discussed about this issue with some people, and in the end
Stef told me "drop a mail in the mailing list, I am interested to understand what all
the other people think about it". So, here I am.
I have my project in which I am modeling development sessions. Each session object has a
number of meta-data (e.g., start, end time, etc.) and a collection of events. Each event
object owns some meta-data and some references to classes that were "touched" by
a given event (i.e., now I am using the Ring definition of the classes, since I plan to
serialize and deserialize them and I cannot serialize the real class object, it would be
too heavy, isn't it?).
Now the question: I would like to create a Moose model of a development session to be able
to import the sessions in the Moose panel and play around with the excellent Moose
tool-suite. How should I proceed? Do you think it's better to annotate and add pragmas
to the existing classes or to create a minimal parallel hierarchy of my model (i.e.,
MooseSession for MySession) and have something like MySession>>#asMooseDef which
returns an object of kind MooseSession?
Thanks in advance,
Roberto
16 Sep
16 Sep
9:44 a.m.
New subject: [Pharo-dev] Create a Moose model a posteriori
Hey!
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM, roberto.minelli(a)usi.ch <
roberto.minelli(a)usi.ch> wrote:
Hi,
I was at ESUG last week and I discussed about this issue with some people,
and in the end Stef told me "drop a mail in the mailing list, I am
interested to understand what all the other people think about it". So,
here I am.
I have my project in which I am modeling development sessions. Each
session object has a number of meta-data (e.g., start, end time, etc.) and
a collection of events. Each event object owns some meta-data and some
references to classes that were "touched" by a given event (i.e., now I am
using the Ring definition of the classes, since I plan to serialize and
deserialize them and I cannot serialize the real class object, it would be
too heavy, isn't it?).
Serializing a class is not a big deal ;). With fuel you can even serialize
execution contexts, blocks and stuff. But (but but), I can tell your
decision is still good because during development you can end up removing a
class, and when that happens the system makes it obsolete and remove all
its data. So if you were pointing to the real class, you would have
problems to access the class data afterwards. And since you use ring,
you're ok ;).
Cheers,
Guille
Now the question: I would like to create a Moose model of a development
session to be able to import the sessions in the Moose panel and play
around with the excellent Moose tool-suite. How should I proceed? Do you
think it's better to annotate and add pragmas to the existing classes or to
create a minimal parallel hierarchy of my model (i.e., MooseSession for
MySession) and have something like MySession>>#asMooseDef which returns an
object of kind MooseSession?
Thanks in advance,
Roberto
10:07 a.m.
To play around with the Moose tools you don't need to start with a MooseModel.
I mostly start with a domain-specific glamour browser. If I need multiple browsers,
I start with a GLMExamplesBrowser.
Stephan
On 16 sep 2013, at 09:19, roberto.minelli(a)usi.ch wrote:
Hi,
I was at ESUG last week and I discussed about this issue with some people, and in the end
Stef told me "drop a mail in the mailing list, I am interested to understand what all
the other people think about it". So, here I am.
I have my project in which I am modeling development sessions. Each session object has a
number of meta-data (e.g., start, end time, etc.) and a collection of events. Each event
object owns some meta-data and some references to classes that were "touched" by
a given event (i.e., now I am using the Ring definition of the classes, since I plan to
serialize and deserialize them and I cannot serialize the real class object, it would be
too heavy, isn't it?).
Now the question: I would like to create a Moose model of a development session to be
able to import the sessions in the Moose panel and play around with the excellent Moose
tool-suite. How should I proceed? Do you think it's better to annotate and add pragmas
to the existing classes or to create a minimal parallel hierarchy of my model (i.e.,
MooseSession for MySession) and have something like MySession>>#asMooseDef which
returns an object of kind MooseSession?
Thanks in advance,
Roberto
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
10:13 a.m.
Exactly. You essentially do not need to build a parallel hierarchy to
benefit from Moose tools.
If all you want is to browse your objects, you should build custom browsers
for that.
If you want quick access to your objects, just extend GTInspector with
dedicated views. This one works the same as the MoosePanel.
However, if you want to serialize objects, then having your own model is
probably a better approach then to use directly those from Ring (as Guille
pointed out). You probably should build a shallow set of objects that can
be resolved to the live ones once imported in the image. Perhaps for this
purpose, you could use FAMIX.
Maybe, if you have a more concrete problem, we could take a look at the
source code.
Cheers,
Doru
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl>wrote;wrote:
To play around with the Moose tools you don't need
to start with a
MooseModel.
I mostly start with a domain-specific glamour browser. If I need multiple
browsers,
I start with a GLMExamplesBrowser.
Stephan
On 16 sep 2013, at 09:19, roberto.minelli(a)usi.ch wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
Hi,
I was at ESUG last week and I discussed about this issue with some
people, and in
the end Stef told me "drop a mail in the mailing list, I am
interested to understand what all the other people think about it". So,
here I am.
I have my project in which I am modeling development sessions. Each
session object
has a number of meta-data (e.g., start, end time, etc.) and
a collection of events. Each event object owns some meta-data and some
references to classes that were "touched" by a given event (i.e., now I am
using the Ring definition of the classes, since I plan to serialize and
deserialize them and I cannot serialize the real class object, it would be
too heavy, isn't it?).
Now the question: I would like to create a Moose model of a development
session to
be able to import the sessions in the Moose panel and play
around with the excellent Moose tool-suite. How should I proceed? Do you
think it's better to annotate and add pragmas to the existing classes or to
create a minimal parallel hierarchy of my model (i.e., MooseSession for
MySession) and have something like MySession>>#asMooseDef which returns an
object of kind MooseSession?
Thanks in advance,
Roberto
_______________________________________________
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
4134
days inactive
4134
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Guillermo Polito -
roberto.minelli＠usi.ch -
Stephan Eggermont -
Tudor Girba