Hi
I was wondering how some pragmas should be handled in Moose? Apparently there is currently two "kind" of pragmas in use: the ones which begin with MSESomething are used to describe the model in Fame. But there is also a range of "property:longName:description:" pragmas which are used to describe entity properties like "numberOfMethods", "numberOfAccesses"...
Such pragmas allow a generic mean to access some metrics, using MooseEntity#propertyNamed: But the implementation of #propertyNamed: relies on attributes which should be described in the metamodel.
Now it seems that the responsibility to parse and interpret those pragmas belongs to Fame. Currently they are not handled, and I just found a TODO note in FM3MetaDescription#attributeNamed:ifAbsent:
-- Simon
Hi Simon,
You will find property:longName:description: only in the FAMIX 2 classes, because this pragma is used in the Meta version of Moose in VW. So, these pragmas should be migrated to Fame MSE*. The other solution is to subclass the Fame PragmaProcessor and modify it to understand the old pragmas.
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 8, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Simon Denier wrote:
Hi
I was wondering how some pragmas should be handled in Moose? Apparently there is currently two "kind" of pragmas in use: the ones which begin with MSESomething are used to describe the model in Fame. But there is also a range of "property:longName:description:" pragmas which are used to describe entity properties like "numberOfMethods", "numberOfAccesses"...
Such pragmas allow a generic mean to access some metrics, using MooseEntity#propertyNamed: But the implementation of #propertyNamed: relies on attributes which should be described in the metamodel.
Now it seems that the responsibility to parse and interpret those pragmas belongs to Fame. Currently they are not handled, and I just found a TODO note in FM3MetaDescription#attributeNamed:ifAbsent:
-- Simon
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."
Hi Simon,
As I understand you have "custom attributes" in your metamodel and want to specify them using pragmas. Further you would like Fame to parse and handle these pragmas.
I dont have a solution ready for this. Which is not a surprise, Fame grows only when need arises. Do you have suggestions how to solve it? What would be best for your need?
Would something alonge these lines help you:
<MSEAnnotation: #longName value: 'pimp my meta-model'> <MSEAnnotation: #description value: 'Yo dawg, I herd you like models so we put ...'>
cheers, AA
-- Follow me http://twitter.com/akuhn
On 08.12.2008, at 12:16, Simon Denier wrote:
Hi
I was wondering how some pragmas should be handled in Moose? Apparently there is currently two "kind" of pragmas in use: the ones which begin with MSESomething are used to describe the model in Fame. But there is also a range of "property:longName:description:" pragmas which are used to describe entity properties like "numberOfMethods", "numberOfAccesses"...
Such pragmas allow a generic mean to access some metrics, using MooseEntity#propertyNamed: But the implementation of #propertyNamed: relies on attributes which should be described in the metamodel.
Now it seems that the responsibility to parse and interpret those pragmas belongs to Fame. Currently they are not handled, and I just found a TODO note in FM3MetaDescription#attributeNamed:ifAbsent:
-- Simon
From: "Adrian Kuhn" akuhn@gmx.ch
Would something alonge these lines help you:
<MSEAnnotation: #longName value: 'pimp my meta-model'> <MSEAnnotation: #description value: 'Yo dawg, I herd you like modelsso we put ...'>
I am also quite interested in custom pragmas being captured in a general way, and then available for query as well as emmitted back into any generated code.
Why not just do the shorter:
<longName: 'foo'> <description: 'bar'> <other: #baz on: 'bar'>
(I'm sure there is a good reason :-)
I'm slowly making my mind around such issues.
First, let me sum up what I understood from the past/current state in Meta and Moose.
In Meta there was some kind of support for generic access (by symbol) to property described by pragmas. This support went as far as providing different SelectorStrategy to compute getter/setter for a property.
Now in Moose, there is a cache system on top of that. In particular since properties are read only, there are computed once and stored. The cache seems to work in two ways: - when you make a direct call to a method computing a property, good behaviour for the method is to ask the cache and provides a block to initialize the value in case it is missing - when you access the property through its symbolic name, it will look for it in the cache and in case it is not there, request it using a SelectorStrategy, which will in the end call the above method (repeat process above)
Note that the second case can result in two cache miss, but this is just a minor remark.
The fact is, the cache is built on top of the metamodel, but it should not be a concern of the metamodel.
OK, enough rambling, back to the topic of pragmas. The attributes declared by those pragmas should be described with FM3Property, right? It makes good sense to me, in particular since we could then request the attributes for their value using #getFrom:
So we could declare such an attribute using <MSEProperty: #NOM type: ....>.
Then there is custom annotations to such attributes using specific pragmas, like you propose: <MSEAnnotation: #longName value: 'pimp my meta-model'> <MSEAnnotation: #description value: 'Yo dawg, I herd you like models so we put ...'>
I think such specific annotations should be stored in FM3Element, with accessors. Also there should be a mean to query enclosed elements based on such annotations, like: I should be able to ask a FM3MetaDescription for all its attributes which declare a 'description' annotation.
On 10 déc. 08, at 00:00, Adrian Kuhn wrote:
Hi Simon,
As I understand you have "custom attributes" in your metamodel and want to specify them using pragmas. Further you would like Fame to parse and handle these pragmas.
I dont have a solution ready for this. Which is not a surprise, Fame grows only when need arises. Do you have suggestions how to solve it? What would be best for your need?
Would something alonge these lines help you:
<MSEAnnotation: #longName value: 'pimp my meta-model'> <MSEAnnotation: #description value: 'Yo dawg, I herd you like models so we put ...'>
cheers, AA
-- Follow me http://twitter.com/akuhn
On 08.12.2008, at 12:16, Simon Denier wrote:
Hi
I was wondering how some pragmas should be handled in Moose? Apparently there is currently two "kind" of pragmas in use: the ones which begin with MSESomething are used to describe the model in Fame. But there is also a range of "property:longName:description:" pragmas which are used to describe entity properties like "numberOfMethods", "numberOfAccesses"...
Such pragmas allow a generic mean to access some metrics, using MooseEntity#propertyNamed: But the implementation of #propertyNamed: relies on attributes which should be described in the metamodel.
Now it seems that the responsibility to parse and interpret those pragmas belongs to Fame. Currently they are not handled, and I just found a TODO note in FM3MetaDescription#attributeNamed:ifAbsent:
-- Simon
-- Simon
Hi Simon,
First, let me sum up what I understood from the past/current state in Meta and Moose.
In Meta there was some kind of support for generic access (by symbol) to property described by pragmas. This support went as far as providing different SelectorStrategy to compute getter/setter for a property.
Now in Moose, there is a cache system on top of that. In particular since properties are read only, there are computed once and stored. The cache seems to work in two ways:
- when you make a direct call to a method computing a property, good
behaviour for the method is to ask the cache and provides a block to initialize the value in case it is missing
- when you access the property through its symbolic name, it will
look for it in the cache and in case it is not there, request it using a SelectorStrategy, which will in the end call the above method (repeat process above)
Note that the second case can result in two cache miss, but this is just a minor remark.
The fact is, the cache is built on top of the metamodel, but it should not be a concern of the metamodel.
The propertyNamed: cache mechanism is not the concern of the meta- model. It is the concern of each object, and it is the object that decide to compute something based on the information from the meta- description. The meta-model does not know anything about such a mechanism.
I do not see why this would be wrong.
In any case, propertyNamed: was a method used heavily long time ago, when we did not have methods for each property. So, most of the code in Moose does not depend on it anymore. However, it is still convenient to call it from the conformity strategies.
OK, enough rambling, back to the topic of pragmas. The attributes declared by those pragmas should be described with FM3Property, right? It makes good sense to me, in particular since we could then request the attributes for their value using #getFrom:
So we could declare such an attribute using <MSEProperty: #NOM type: ....>.
Then there is custom annotations to such attributes using specific pragmas, like you propose: <MSEAnnotation: #longName value: 'pimp my meta-model'> <MSEAnnotation: #description value: 'Yo dawg, I herd you like models so we put ...'>
I think such specific annotations should be stored in FM3Element, with accessors. Also there should be a mean to query enclosed elements based on such annotations, like: I should be able to ask a FM3MetaDescription for all its attributes which declare a 'description' annotation.
In Moose/Meta we subclassed Property with a class that has longName and description fields, and we had a specialized PragmaProcessor that knew how to read those annotations. I agree that there these classes did not have much behavior, but it was easier to grasp. Annotations linked to meta Properties can be an overkill for the matter at hand. On the other hand, if Annotations could be attached to any Element, this could be a nice way to comment the meta-model.
Cheers, Doru
On 10 déc. 08, at 00:00, Adrian Kuhn wrote:
Hi Simon,
As I understand you have "custom attributes" in your metamodel and want to specify them using pragmas. Further you would like Fame to parse and handle these pragmas.
I dont have a solution ready for this. Which is not a surprise, Fame grows only when need arises. Do you have suggestions how to solve it? What would be best for your need?
Would something alonge these lines help you:
<MSEAnnotation: #longName value: 'pimp my meta-model'> <MSEAnnotation: #description value: 'Yo dawg, I herd you like models so we put ...'>
cheers, AA
-- Follow me http://twitter.com/akuhn
On 08.12.2008, at 12:16, Simon Denier wrote:
Hi
I was wondering how some pragmas should be handled in Moose? Apparently there is currently two "kind" of pragmas in use: the ones which begin with MSESomething are used to describe the model in Fame. But there is also a range of "property:longName:description:" pragmas which are used to describe entity properties like "numberOfMethods", "numberOfAccesses"...
Such pragmas allow a generic mean to access some metrics, using MooseEntity#propertyNamed: But the implementation of #propertyNamed: relies on attributes which should be described in the metamodel.
Now it seems that the responsibility to parse and interpret those pragmas belongs to Fame. Currently they are not handled, and I just found a TODO note in FM3MetaDescription#attributeNamed:ifAbsent:
-- Simon
-- Simon
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen."
On 11 déc. 08, at 07:52, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Simon,
First, let me sum up what I understood from the past/current state in Meta and Moose.
In Meta there was some kind of support for generic access (by symbol) to property described by pragmas. This support went as far as providing different SelectorStrategy to compute getter/setter for a property.
Now in Moose, there is a cache system on top of that. In particular since properties are read only, there are computed once and stored. The cache seems to work in two ways:
- when you make a direct call to a method computing a property,
good behaviour for the method is to ask the cache and provides a block to initialize the value in case it is missing
- when you access the property through its symbolic name, it will
look for it in the cache and in case it is not there, request it using a SelectorStrategy, which will in the end call the above method (repeat process above)
Note that the second case can result in two cache miss, but this is just a minor remark.
The fact is, the cache is built on top of the metamodel, but it should not be a concern of the metamodel.
The propertyNamed: cache mechanism is not the concern of the meta- model. It is the concern of each object, and it is the object that decide to compute something based on the information from the meta- description. The meta-model does not know anything about such a mechanism.
I do not see why this would be wrong.
Oups sorry Doru, I did not say it was wrong, it was just a plain old summary statement of the current state as I was clarifying my understanding of the code. Actually, I was thinking yesterday if pushing the cache as a generic mechanism into the metamodel would make sense but, too much hurdles for no improvment. So I almost wrote this for myself :)
In any case, propertyNamed: was a method used heavily long time ago, when we did not have methods for each property. So, most of the code in Moose does not depend on it anymore. However, it is still convenient to call it from the conformity strategies.
Nice to know that. But what do you call a conformity strategy?
Still, #propertyNamed: seems a good way to access properties when displaying them in the UI for an entity, right? Or is there something I missed?
OK, enough rambling, back to the topic of pragmas. The attributes declared by those pragmas should be described with FM3Property, right? It makes good sense to me, in particular since we could then request the attributes for their value using #getFrom:
So we could declare such an attribute using <MSEProperty: #NOM type: ....>.
Then there is custom annotations to such attributes using specific pragmas, like you propose: <MSEAnnotation: #longName value: 'pimp my meta-model'> <MSEAnnotation: #description value: 'Yo dawg, I herd you like models so we put ...'>
I think such specific annotations should be stored in FM3Element, with accessors. Also there should be a mean to query enclosed elements based on such annotations, like: I should be able to ask a FM3MetaDescription for all its attributes which declare a 'description' annotation.
In Moose/Meta we subclassed Property with a class that has longName and description fields, and we had a specialized PragmaProcessor that knew how to read those annotations. I agree that there these classes did not have much behavior,
How easy could this be in Fame?
but it was easier to grasp. Annotations linked to meta Properties can be an overkill for the matter at hand. On the other hand, if Annotations could be attached to any Element, this could be a nice way to comment the meta-model.
I think so.
Now there are other annotations use elsewhere in Moose, like the <navigation> ones. Currently, I dont know how they are dealt with.
Cheers, Doru
On 10 déc. 08, at 00:00, Adrian Kuhn wrote:
Hi Simon,
As I understand you have "custom attributes" in your metamodel and want to specify them using pragmas. Further you would like Fame to parse and handle these pragmas.
I dont have a solution ready for this. Which is not a surprise, Fame grows only when need arises. Do you have suggestions how to solve it? What would be best for your need?
Would something alonge these lines help you:
<MSEAnnotation: #longName value: 'pimp my meta-model'> <MSEAnnotation: #description value: 'Yo dawg, I herd you like models so we put ...'>
cheers, AA
-- Follow me http://twitter.com/akuhn
On 08.12.2008, at 12:16, Simon Denier wrote:
Hi
I was wondering how some pragmas should be handled in Moose? Apparently there is currently two "kind" of pragmas in use: the ones which begin with MSESomething are used to describe the model in Fame. But there is also a range of "property:longName:description:" pragmas which are used to describe entity properties like "numberOfMethods", "numberOfAccesses"...
Such pragmas allow a generic mean to access some metrics, using MooseEntity#propertyNamed: But the implementation of #propertyNamed: relies on attributes which should be described in the metamodel.
Now it seems that the responsibility to parse and interpret those pragmas belongs to Fame. Currently they are not handled, and I just found a TODO note in FM3MetaDescription#attributeNamed:ifAbsent:
-- Simon
-- Simon
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- Simon
Hi Simon,
The fact is, the cache is built on top of the metamodel, but it should not be a concern of the metamodel.
The propertyNamed: cache mechanism is not the concern of the meta- model. It is the concern of each object, and it is the object that decide to compute something based on the information from the meta- description. The meta-model does not know anything about such a mechanism.
I do not see why this would be wrong.
Oups sorry Doru, I did not say it was wrong, it was just a plain old summary statement of the current state as I was clarifying my understanding of the code.
Oh, do not apologize for things like this. I do not get upset that easily :)
Actually, I was thinking yesterday if pushing the cache as a generic mechanism into the metamodel would make sense but, too much hurdles for no improvment. So I almost wrote this for myself :)
Ok, I misunderstood that you were criticizing my beautiful design that evolved from one thing and ended up being something else that is not really useful anymore :).
In any case, propertyNamed: was a method used heavily long time ago, when we did not have methods for each property. So, most of the code in Moose does not depend on it anymore. However, it is still convenient to call it from the conformity strategies.
Nice to know that. But what do you call a conformity strategy?
All the classes that start with CF (in the Moose-ConformityStrategies package). In the VW browser, you get an input box to query a group. Behind that there is a ConformityStrategy which is nothing but a simple AST for a simple boolean language. It's called Conformity because for a query of NOM > 10 it can say either true/false, or a percentage of conformity. For example, if NOM = 20 then, the result would be 200%.
Still, #propertyNamed: seems a good way to access properties when displaying them in the UI for an entity, right? Or is there something I missed?
Not really. You should be able to get a similar result by directly getting it from the object via mmGet: (in Meta).
In Moose/Meta we subclassed Property with a class that has longName and description fields, and we had a specialized PragmaProcessor that knew how to read those annotations. I agree that there these classes did not have much behavior,
How easy could this be in Fame?
Just subclass Property and that is it.
but it was easier to grasp. Annotations linked to meta Properties can be an overkill for the matter at hand. On the other hand, if Annotations could be attached to any Element, this could be a nice way to comment the meta-model.
I think so.
Now there are other annotations use elsewhere in Moose, like the <navigation> ones. Currently, I dont know how they are dealt with.
In VW we have a MetaNavigation class.
Cheers, Doru
Cheers, Doru
On 10 déc. 08, at 00:00, Adrian Kuhn wrote:
Hi Simon,
As I understand you have "custom attributes" in your metamodel and want to specify them using pragmas. Further you would like Fame to parse and handle these pragmas.
I dont have a solution ready for this. Which is not a surprise, Fame grows only when need arises. Do you have suggestions how to solve it? What would be best for your need?
Would something alonge these lines help you:
<MSEAnnotation: #longName value: 'pimp my meta-model'> <MSEAnnotation: #description value: 'Yo dawg, I herd you like models so we put ...'>
cheers, AA
-- Follow me http://twitter.com/akuhn
On 08.12.2008, at 12:16, Simon Denier wrote:
Hi
I was wondering how some pragmas should be handled in Moose? Apparently there is currently two "kind" of pragmas in use: the ones which begin with MSESomething are used to describe the model in Fame. But there is also a range of "property:longName:description:" pragmas which are used to describe entity properties like "numberOfMethods", "numberOfAccesses"...
Such pragmas allow a generic mean to access some metrics, using MooseEntity#propertyNamed: But the implementation of #propertyNamed: relies on attributes which should be described in the metamodel.
Now it seems that the responsibility to parse and interpret those pragmas belongs to Fame. Currently they are not handled, and I just found a TODO note in FM3MetaDescription#attributeNamed:ifAbsent:
-- Simon
-- Simon
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- Simon
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen."
-
Adrian Kuhn -
Itsme (Sophie) -
Simon Denier -
Tudor Girba