29 Jan
2013
29 Jan
'13
1:11 a.m.
Hi doru
I have some scripts (available in the wonderful chapter on Gofer) to migrate code from ss
and ss3 to SmalltalkHub.
Now the question is how do we organize moose?
I propose to create a team Moosers? and Moose as a project
Then what do we put underneath?
Fame as subproject?
Mondrian
Metanool
Stef
29 Jan
29 Jan
7:48 a.m.
Hi,
I already created a Moose team, and a Moose project inside.
I see the forces as follows:
- We need to have each engine individually loadable because they are often used in
orthogonal projects
- There are projects that are developed separately (like Roassal), and thus these are
better living outside of the Moose team repository for the moment.
- Projects that are either no longer maintained, like Fame, or developed only within the
context of Moose, like MooseAlgos, should go into the Moose team repository. Nevertheless,
I think each of these projects would better have their own repository inside the Moose
team repository.
- Moose is the platform, not the actual analyses. Thus, the engines should be grouped in a
separate configuration. We can call it MooseEngines. Right now, this would include: Fame,
Magritte, Metanool, Glamour, Arki, Merlin, Roassal, (Mondrian for a short time), EyeSee,
MooseAlgos, PetitParser, MooseCore, the Core of MooseFinder.
- FAMIX should become a family of meta-models and should receive its own configuration and
repository with everything related inside: FAMIX-Core, FAMIX-Extensions, FAMIX-Java,
FAMIX-Smalltalk, Hismo, Dynamix. In the same repository, I would add also FAMIXAnalysis to
include various extensions such as MondrianPaintings or RoassalPaintings or specific
browsers and algorithms.
- At the moment, we still need to clean DSM and SmallDude. Until they are not cleaned, I
would not migrate them as they are.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Doru
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote:
Hi doru
I have some scripts (available in the wonderful chapter on Gofer) to migrate code from ss
and ss3 to SmalltalkHub.
Now the question is how do we organize moose?
I propose to create a team Moosers? and Moose as a project
Then what do we put underneath?
Fame as subproject?
Mondrian
Metanool
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the right
one."
12:12 p.m.
I see the forces as follows:
- We need to have each engine individually loadable because they are often used in
orthogonal projects
Yes yes!
- There are projects that are developed separately
(like Roassal), and thus these are better living outside of the Moose team repository for
the moment.
it makes sense. I have created a team ObjectProfile. It will be in it.
- Projects that are either no longer maintained, like
Fame, or developed only within the context of Moose, like MooseAlgos, should go into the
Moose team repository. Nevertheless, I think each of these projects would better have
their own repository inside the Moose team repository.
Yes, this is a nice step toward getting a better modularity.
- Moose is the platform, not the actual analyses.
Thus, the engines should be grouped in a separate configuration. We can call it
MooseEngines. Right now, this would include: Fame, Magritte, Metanool, Glamour, Arki,
Merlin, Roassal, (Mondrian for a short time), EyeSee, MooseAlgos, PetitParser, MooseCore,
the Core of MooseFinder.
Yes.
- FAMIX should become a family of meta-models and
should receive its own configuration and repository with everything related inside:
FAMIX-Core, FAMIX-Extensions, FAMIX-Java, FAMIX-Smalltalk, Hismo, Dynamix. In the same
repository, I would add also FAMIXAnalysis to include various extensions such as
MondrianPaintings or RoassalPaintings or specific browsers and algorithms.
Why not FAMIXExtra (or FAMIXExtension) instead of FAMIXAnalysis ?
- At the moment, we still need to clean DSM and
SmallDude. Until they are not cleaned, I would not migrate them as they are.
Make sense
Alexandre
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
Hi doru
I have some scripts (available in the wonderful chapter on Gofer) to migrate code from ss
and ss3 to SmalltalkHub.
Now the question is how do we organize moose?
I propose to create a team Moosers? and Moose as a project
Then what do we put underneath?
Fame as subproject?
Mondrian
Metanool
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the
right one."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
30 Jan
30 Jan
1:52 a.m.
I'm ok on the principles but we should pay attention not to make things complex.
Hence I would not have Moose Engines. I was not talking about configuration but location
To me a configuration is orthogonal to the structure of the repository. I was talking more
about the structure on
Roassal
Moose
Fame
MooseCore
FAMIX/
MooseAlgos
Metanool
Arki
Merlin
EyeSee
FAMIX
Glamour
Magritte ? do we have our own
PetitParser?
Each of these packages should have a configurationOf that is loading.
Stef
Hi,
I already created a Moose team, and a Moose project inside.
I see the forces as follows:
- We need to have each engine individually loadable because they are often used in
orthogonal projects
- There are projects that are developed separately (like Roassal), and thus these are
better living outside of the Moose team repository for the moment.
- Projects that are either no longer maintained, like Fame, or developed only within the
context of Moose, like MooseAlgos, should go into the Moose team repository. Nevertheless,
I think each of these projects would better have their own repository inside the Moose
team repository.
- Moose is the platform, not the actual analyses. Thus, the engines should be grouped in
a separate configuration. We can call it MooseEngines. Right now, this would include:
Fame, Magritte, Metanool, Glamour, Arki, Merlin, Roassal, (Mondrian for a short time),
EyeSee, MooseAlgos, PetitParser, MooseCore, the Core of MooseFinder.
- FAMIX should become a family of meta-models and should receive its own configuration
and repository with everything related inside: FAMIX-Core, FAMIX-Extensions, FAMIX-Java,
FAMIX-Smalltalk, Hismo, Dynamix. In the same repository, I would add also FAMIXAnalysis to
include various extensions such as MondrianPaintings or RoassalPaintings or specific
browsers and algorithms.
- At the moment, we still need to clean DSM and SmallDude. Until they are not cleaned, I
would not migrate them as they are.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Doru
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote:
Hi doru
I have some scripts (available in the wonderful chapter on Gofer) to migrate code from ss
and ss3 to SmalltalkHub.
Now the question is how do we organize moose?
I propose to create a team Moosers? and Moose as a project
Then what do we put underneath?
Fame as subproject?
Mondrian
Metanool
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the
right one."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
7:58 a.m.
Hi Stef,
On Jan 30, 2013, at 1:52 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote:
I'm ok on the principles but we should pay
attention not to make things complex.
Actually, I think they are complex at this moment because of unclear structure. And we can
see this in the configuration (see the default: and coreDefault: methods).
Hence I would not have Moose Engines. I was not
talking about configuration but location
To me a configuration is orthogonal to the structure of the repository.
Sure. I just said that once we move, we will have to reword the configurations anyway, so
it is a good opportunity to reorganize.
I was talking more about the structure on
Roassal
Moose
Fame
MooseCore
FAMIX/
MooseAlgos
Metanool
Arki
Merlin
EyeSee
FAMIX
Glamour
Magritte ? do we have our own
PetitParser?
No. For now, Magritte and PetitParser should stay where they are: the repository is
stable, and we have enough to do :).
Each of these packages should have a configurationOf
that is loading.
Exactly. The reason why I would like to have explicit engines loadable easily is that
right now it is difficult to communicate Moose, and most people still understand FAMIX and
metrics when we say Moose. Now that I think of it, we can say that Moose are the engines,
and the rest are in the MooseSuite.
Another reason why we have to make the distinction between engines and analyses explicit,
is to help future projects split according to these dimensions. For example, because we
did not have the distinction, DSM and SmallDude have bundled together both the generic
engine and the actual detection and visualization for FAMIX. This made it almost
impossible to load within the context of Moose (that is why we now have default: and
coreDefault: in the configuration).
This distinction is needed.
Cheers,
Doru
Stef
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar."
Hi,
I already created a Moose team, and a Moose project inside.
I see the forces as follows:
- We need to have each engine individually loadable because they are often used in
orthogonal projects
- There are projects that are developed separately (like Roassal), and thus these are
better living outside of the Moose team repository for the moment.
- Projects that are either no longer maintained, like Fame, or developed only within the
context of Moose, like MooseAlgos, should go into the Moose team repository. Nevertheless,
I think each of these projects would better have their own repository inside the Moose
team repository.
- Moose is the platform, not the actual analyses. Thus, the engines should be grouped in
a separate configuration. We can call it MooseEngines. Right now, this would include:
Fame, Magritte, Metanool, Glamour, Arki, Merlin, Roassal, (Mondrian for a short time),
EyeSee, MooseAlgos, PetitParser, MooseCore, the Core of MooseFinder.
- FAMIX should become a family of meta-models and should receive its own configuration
and repository with everything related inside: FAMIX-Core, FAMIX-Extensions, FAMIX-Java,
FAMIX-Smalltalk, Hismo, Dynamix. In the same repository, I would add also FAMIXAnalysis to
include various extensions such as MondrianPaintings or RoassalPaintings or specific
browsers and algorithms.
- At the moment, we still need to clean DSM and SmallDude. Until they are not cleaned, I
would not migrate them as they are.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Doru
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi doru
I have some scripts (available in the wonderful chapter on Gofer) to migrate code from ss
and ss3 to SmalltalkHub.
Now the question is how do we organize moose?
I propose to create a team Moosers? and Moose as a project
Then what do we put underneath?
Fame as subproject?
Mondrian
Metanool
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the
right one."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
12:38 p.m.
I was talking more about the structure on
Roassal
Moose
Fame
MooseCore
FAMIX/
MooseAlgos
Metanool
Arki
Merlin
EyeSee
FAMIX
Glamour
Magritte ? do we have our own
PetitParser?
No. For now, Magritte and PetitParser should stay where they are: the repository is
stable, and we have enough to do :). Each of these packages should have a
configurationOf that is loading.
Exactly. The reason why I would like to have explicit engines loadable easily is that
right now it is difficult to communicate Moose, and most people still understand FAMIX and
metrics when we say Moose. Now that I think of it, we can say that Moose are the engines,
and the rest are in the MooseSuite.
Another reason why we have to make the distinction between engines and analyses explicit,
is to help future projects split according to these dimensions. For example, because we
did not have the distinction, DSM and SmallDude have bundled together both the generic
engine and the actual detection and visualization for FAMIX. This made it almost
impossible to load within the context of Moose (that is why we now have default: and
coreDefault: in the configuration).
This distinction is needed.
Cheers,
Doru
Stef
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"From an abstract enough point of view, any two things are similar."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi,
I already created a Moose team, and a Moose project inside.
I see the forces as follows:
- We need to have each engine individually loadable because they are often used in
orthogonal projects
- There are projects that are developed separately (like Roassal), and thus these are
better living outside of the Moose team repository for the moment.
- Projects that are either no longer maintained, like Fame, or developed only within the
context of Moose, like MooseAlgos, should go into the Moose team repository. Nevertheless,
I think each of these projects would better have their own repository inside the Moose
team repository.
- Moose is the platform, not the actual analyses. Thus, the engines should be grouped in
a separate configuration. We can call it MooseEngines. Right now, this would include:
Fame, Magritte, Metanool, Glamour, Arki, Merlin, Roassal, (Mondrian for a short time),
EyeSee, MooseAlgos, PetitParser, MooseCore, the Core of MooseFinder.
- FAMIX should become a family of meta-models and should receive its own configuration
and repository with everything related inside: FAMIX-Core, FAMIX-Extensions, FAMIX-Java,
FAMIX-Smalltalk, Hismo, Dynamix. In the same repository, I would add also FAMIXAnalysis to
include various extensions such as MondrianPaintings or RoassalPaintings or specific
browsers and algorithms.
- At the moment, we still need to clean DSM and SmallDude. Until they are not cleaned, I
would not migrate them as they are.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Doru
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi doru
I have some scripts (available in the wonderful chapter on Gofer) to migrate code from ss
and ss3 to SmalltalkHub.
Now the question is how do we organize moose?
I propose to create a team Moosers? and Moose as a project
Then what do we put underneath?
Fame as subproject?
Mondrian
Metanool
Stef
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the
right one."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
4344
days inactive
4345
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba