13 Jan
2010
13 Jan
'10
6:08 p.m.
I never understood the purpose of this method.
I see that is is in Moose-Core. Should it be placed in Famix-Extensions or even better,
Famix-Java? It would remove two direct cycles :) (between Moose-Core, Famix-Core,
Famix-Extensions)
BTW, FamixAnnotationType>>annotatedEntities should also be moved to Famix-Java.
--
Simon
13 Jan
13 Jan
6:18 p.m.
Hi,
On 13 Jan 2010, at 18:08, Simon Denier wrote:
I never understood the purpose of this method.
The idea is that Java exporters do not provide nesting of namespaces,
while we can leverage this information. So, I use this script to
create a nesting of namespaces.
I see that is is in Moose-Core. Should it be placed in
Famix-
Extensions or even better, Famix-Java? It would remove two direct
cycles :) (between Moose-Core, Famix-Core, Famix-Extensions)
Indeed, it should not be in Moose-Core. It should be in Famix-Core,
because it is actually not specific to Java, but only to the naming
conventions of namespaces.
BTW, FamixAnnotationType>>annotatedEntities
should also be moved to
Famix-Java.
Not really. This should be useful as well to model Smalltalk pragmas.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
6:33 p.m.
On 13 janv. 2010, at 18:18, Tudor Girba wrote:
Then, the class FamixAnnotationType and related should be defined in another package than
Famix-Java.
--
Simon
Hi,
On 13 Jan 2010, at 18:08, Simon Denier wrote:
cant be Famix-Core, but can be Famix-Extensions
I never understood the purpose of this method.
The idea is that Java exporters do not provide nesting of namespaces, while we can
leverage this information. So, I use this script to create a nesting of namespaces.
I see that is is in Moose-Core. Should it be
placed in Famix-Extensions or even better, Famix-Java? It would remove two direct cycles
:) (between Moose-Core, Famix-Core, Famix-Extensions)
Indeed, it should not be in Moose-Core. It should be in Famix-Core, because it is
actually not specific to Java, but only to the naming conventions of namespaces. BTW, FamixAnnotationType>>annotatedEntities
should also be moved to Famix-Java.
Not really. This should be useful as well to model Smalltalk pragmas.
8:26 p.m.
Hi,
You are right, it's Famix-Extensions.
Then, the class FamixAnnotationType and related should be defined in
another package than Famix-Java.
Right :). Probably Famix-Extensions.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
Hi,
On 13 Jan 2010, at 18:08, Simon Denier wrote:
cant be Famix-Core, but can be Famix-Extensions I never understood the purpose of this method.
The idea is that Java exporters do not provide nesting of
namespaces, while we can leverage this information. So, I use this
script to create a nesting of namespaces.
I see that is is in Moose-Core. Should it be
placed in Famix-
Extensions or even better, Famix-Java? It would remove two direct
cycles :) (between Moose-Core, Famix-Core, Famix-Extensions)
Indeed, it should not be in Moose-Core. It should be in Famix-Core,
because it is actually not specific to Java, but only to the naming
conventions of namespaces. BTW, FamixAnnotationType>>annotatedEntities
should also be moved
to Famix-Java.
Not really. This should be useful as well to model Smalltalk pragmas.
5457
days inactive
5457
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Simon Denier -
Tudor Girba