Status: New Owner: ---- Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 744 by usman.bh...@gmail.com: SmalltalkImporter should be renamed SmalltalkExtractor http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=744
to convey the fact that it goes from source code to model
Updates: Status: Invalid
Comment #1 on issue 744 by tu...@tudorgirba.com: SmalltalkImporter should be renamed SmalltalkExtractor http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=744
I disagree. We call importer anything that imports data from somewhere into a Moose model.
Updates: Status: New
Comment #2 on issue 744 by stephane...@gmail.com: SmalltalkImporter should be renamed SmalltalkExtractor http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=744
I still maintain this point because it would make the domain cleaner.
Updates: Status: Invalid
Comment #3 on issue 744 by tudor.gi...@gmail.com: SmalltalkImporter should be renamed SmalltalkExtractor http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=744
I do not :).
Comment #4 on issue 744 by stephane...@gmail.com: SmalltalkImporter should be renamed SmalltalkExtractor http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=744
So what does it mean? Should I fork my code, because I wrote the importer as far as I know?
Comment #5 on issue 744 by tudor.gi...@gmail.com: SmalltalkImporter should be renamed SmalltalkExtractor http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=744
This means that I veto this change in the main version of Moose. I gave you my reasons. Importer denotes going from an external source to the model. It's a clear meaning. And it fits in the metaphor that we have an importing step. If we introduce another term we will say, an importing/extracting step which is not nice.
If you want to stress that it has to do with code, you can say SmalltalkCodeImporter, but to me, it really is very clear what SmalltalkImporter stands for.
Now, I do not think that you should need forking, but if you insist, of course, I cannot stop you.
Comment #5 on issue 744 by tudor.gi...@gmail.com: SmalltalkImporter should be renamed SmalltalkExtractor http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/issues/detail?id=744
This means that I veto this change in the main version of Moose. I gave you my reasons. Importer denotes going from an external source to the model. It's a clear meaning. And it fits in the metaphor that we have an importing step. If we introduce another term we will say, an importing/extracting step which is not nice.
But they are two steps in any languages and you know it. I do not understand your reaction. And the extraction term is only for Smalltalk and nobody cares about Smalltalk because it has no business value so we could have a clear separation for Smalltalk because the importing of Smalltalk is not the same for Java, C# and …..
The SmalltalkImporterTask has nothing to do with the MSEReader or other importingTask.
If you want to stress that it has to do with code, you can say SmalltalkCodeImporter, but to me, it really is very clear what SmalltalkImporter stands for.
But it brings fuzziness in the domain. Because this is not clear (you know for new people coming in to see ok this is about Smalltalk creation of entity from source code and this is importing from outside).
Now, I do not think that you should need forking, but if you insist, of course, I cannot stop you.
Indeed now there are consequences because if we fork this means that probably all the group here will use another version. Some people suggested to me to fork Moose and I was not in favor but I will keep the option more open now. We will discuss that with the new engineer.
Stef
-
moose-technology＠googlecode.com -
Stéphane Ducasse