21 Dec
2009
21 Dec
'09
4:32 p.m.
Hi all,
2 short ones:
If I have a FAMIXNamespace, how do I obtain a reference to the model
that contains this namespace?
FAMIXNamespace has child scopes instead of namespaces, which makes it
ugly to define a Glamour tree view on models and their namespaces. I
have therefore added the code below, I think it would be a good idea
to add that to the core as well.
FAMIXNamespace>>allNamespaces
^ self childScopes
--
Johan Fabry
jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
21 Dec
21 Dec
7:04 p.m.
Hi,
If I have a FAMIXNamespace, how do I obtain a
reference to the model
that contains this namespace?
namespace mooseModel
FAMIXNamespace has child scopes instead of namespaces,
which makes
it ugly to define a Glamour tree view on models and their
namespaces. I have therefore added the code below, I think it would
be a good idea to add that to the core as well.
FAMIXNamespace>>allNamespaces
^ self childScopes
Indeed, this part will probably need rethinking a bit. Probably the
best thing is to define childScopes as derived and override it in the
subclasses to offer uniform interface between Namespace and Package.
So, basically we could have the same pattern as with belongsTo:
FAMIXNamespace>>childScopes
<MSEProperty ... > <derived>
^ self namespaces
FAMIXPackage>>childScopes
<MSEProperty ... > <derived>
^ self packages
What do you think?
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef."
7:22 p.m.
On 21 Dec 2009, at 15:04, Tudor Girba wrote:
I like your childScopes approach better than mine, you are more
generic than my quick fix.
--
Johan Fabry
jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
Hi,
Ugh, dont know why I did not see that. Thanks!
If I have a FAMIXNamespace, how do I obtain a
reference to the
model that contains this namespace?
namespace mooseModel FAMIXNamespace has child scopes instead of
namespaces, which makes
it ugly to define a Glamour tree view on models and their
namespaces. I have therefore added the code below, I think it would
be a good idea to add that to the core as well.
FAMIXNamespace>>allNamespaces
^ self childScopes
Indeed, this part will probably need rethinking a bit. Probably the
best thing is to define childScopes as derived and override it in
the subclasses to offer uniform interface between Namespace and
Package. So, basically we could have the same pattern as with
belongsTo: 
7:36 p.m.
For me childScopes does not reveal its intention.
I do not understand what it use for.
Stef
On Dec 21, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
If I have a FAMIXNamespace, how do I obtain a
reference to the model that contains this namespace?
namespace mooseModel
FAMIXNamespace has child scopes instead of
namespaces, which makes it ugly to define a Glamour tree view on models and their
namespaces. I have therefore added the code below, I think it would be a good idea to add
that to the core as well.
FAMIXNamespace>>allNamespaces
^ self childScopes
Indeed, this part will probably need rethinking a bit. Probably the best thing is to
define childScopes as derived and override it in the subclasses to offer uniform interface
between Namespace and Package. So, basically we could have the same pattern as with
belongsTo:
FAMIXNamespace>>childScopes
<MSEProperty ... > <derived>
^ self namespaces
FAMIXPackage>>childScopes
<MSEProperty ... > <derived>
^ self packages
What do you think?
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
9:29 p.m.
Hi Stef,
In general, in the new famix we named variables based on the types
they point to.
In this case we have:
ScopingEntity
-- Namespace
-- Package
In each ScopingEntity we point to other "childScopes" :), but in fact
in each Package we point to Packages and in a Namespace we point to
Namespaces. So we could leave childScopes as a polymorphic property
between Package and Namespace and have the actual implementation in
the subclasses.
Cheers,
Doru
On 21 Dec 2009, at 19:36, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
For me childScopes does not reveal its intention.
I do not understand what it use for.
Stef
On Dec 21, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
Hi,
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev If I have a FAMIXNamespace, how do I obtain a
reference to the
model that contains this namespace?
namespace mooseModel
FAMIXNamespace has child scopes instead of
namespaces, which makes
it ugly to define a Glamour tree view on models and their
namespaces. I have therefore added the code below, I think it
would be a good idea to add that to the core as well.
FAMIXNamespace>>allNamespaces
^ self childScopes
Indeed, this part will probably need rethinking a bit. Probably the
best thing is to define childScopes as derived and override it in
the subclasses to offer uniform interface between Namespace and
Package. So, basically we could have the same pattern as with
belongsTo:
FAMIXNamespace>>childScopes
<MSEProperty ... > <derived>
^ self namespaces
FAMIXPackage>>childScopes
<MSEProperty ... > <derived>
^ self packages
What do you think?
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
22 Dec
22 Dec
10:01 a.m.
Ok add that in the class comment of ScopingEntity
On Dec 21, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Stef,
In general, in the new famix we named variables based on the types they point to.
In this case we have:
ScopingEntity
-- Namespace
-- Package
In each ScopingEntity we point to other "childScopes" :), but in fact in each
Package we point to Packages and in a Namespace we point to Namespaces. So we could leave
childScopes as a polymorphic property between Package and Namespace and have the actual
implementation in the subclasses.
Cheers,
Doru
On 21 Dec 2009, at 19:36, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
For me childScopes does not reveal its
intention.
I do not understand what it use for.
Stef
On Dec 21, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi,
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev If I have a FAMIXNamespace, how do I obtain a
reference to the model that contains this namespace?
namespace mooseModel
FAMIXNamespace has child scopes instead of
namespaces, which makes it ugly to define a Glamour tree view on models and their
namespaces. I have therefore added the code below, I think it would be a good idea to add
that to the core as well.
FAMIXNamespace>>allNamespaces
^ self childScopes
Indeed, this part will probably need rethinking a bit. Probably the best thing is to
define childScopes as derived and override it in the subclasses to offer uniform interface
between Namespace and Package. So, basically we could have the same pattern as with
belongsTo:
FAMIXNamespace>>childScopes
<MSEProperty ... > <derived>
^ self namespaces
FAMIXPackage>>childScopes
<MSEProperty ... > <derived>
^ self packages
What do you think?
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"No matter how many recipes we know, we still value a chef."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
5248
days inactive
5249
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Johan Fabry -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba