15 Aug
2007
15 Aug
'07
12:44 a.m.
Hi Sara,
for some unfortunate reason, the mapping between Smalltalk namespaces
and model packages is not 1:1. One of the exceptions is that all
SCG.Moose.FAMIX* classes are modeled using FAMIX.* meta-descriptions.
If this is a real problem for your application, I can fix that tomorrow.
cheers,
AA
On 14 Aug 2007, at 21:04 , sellossa(a)ensieta.fr wrote:
Hi Adrian!
I get something weird when I use it for SCG.Moose.
When I do:
|package|
SCG.Moose asMetaDescription classes.
package:=SCG.Moose asMetaDescription inspect.
package doesn't contain the entites FAMIXClass, FAMIXAttribute and
so on...
However, FAMIX entites are defined in the namespace SCG.Moose,
isn't it?
Thanks you for your help
Sara
15 Aug
15 Aug
9:03 a.m.
thank you Adrian
Indeed, It could be useful for my application.
Sara
Hi Sara,
for some unfortunate reason, the mapping between Smalltalk namespaces
and model packages is not 1:1. One of the exceptions is that all
SCG.Moose.FAMIX* classes are modeled using FAMIX.* meta-descriptions.
If this is a real problem for your application, I can fix that tomorrow.
cheers,
AA
On 14 Aug 2007, at 21:04 , sellossa(a)ensieta.fr wrote:
Hi Adrian!
I get something weird when I use it for SCG.Moose.
When I do:
|package|
SCG.Moose asMetaDescription classes.
package:=SCG.Moose asMetaDescription inspect.
package doesn't contain the entites FAMIXClass, FAMIXAttribute and
so on...
However, FAMIX entites are defined in the namespace SCG.Moose,
isn't it?
Thanks you for your help
Sara
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
5:11 p.m.
I remember now why we have this strange mismatch in place.
In the MSE files, is written eg "FAMIX.Foo" and hence the meta-
description must match. Unfortunately the smalltalk implementation
has never been move the the FAMIX namespace but is still in
SCG.Moose.FAMIX*. Move the metamodel to another namespace is nothing
I can do alone right now, it would break too much.
Alas,
AA
On 15 Aug 2007, at 9:03 , sellossa(a)ensieta.fr wrote:
thank you Adrian
Indeed, It could be useful for my application.
Sara
Hi Sara,
for some unfortunate reason, the mapping between Smalltalk namespaces
and model packages is not 1:1. One of the exceptions is that all
SCG.Moose.FAMIX* classes are modeled using FAMIX.* meta-descriptions.
If this is a real problem for your application, I can fix that
tomorrow.
cheers,
AA
On 14 Aug 2007, at 21:04 , sellossa(a)ensieta.fr wrote:
Hi Adrian!
I get something weird when I use it for SCG.Moose.
When I do:
|package|
SCG.Moose asMetaDescription classes.
package:=SCG.Moose asMetaDescription inspect.
package doesn't contain the entites FAMIXClass, FAMIXAttribute and
so on...
However, FAMIX entites are defined in the namespace SCG.Moose,
isn't it?
Thanks you for your help
Sara
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
6487
days inactive
6488
days old
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Adrian Kuhn -
sellossaļ¼ ensieta.fr