Hi
I'm about to write a new package reference plugin for moose. Now I have to pay attention because of the way namespaces and packages are orthogonal in Smalltalk. I have a question: when we will be loading java code in Moose what will be a Java package? a moose namespace or a moose package?
If this is a namespace then I will have certainly to duplicate the logic in package and namespace and I would like to avoid that. Does anybody have an idea how to avoid that?
Stef
In the latest FAMIX proposed by Adrian, Package and Namespaces are both ScopedEntities. The reason for this is exactly to not clone the code in both namespace and in package.
I am not sure that I like that though because the semantics of Package is not the one of Scoped.
Doru
On Nov 25, 2007, at 1:39 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
Hi
I'm about to write a new package reference plugin for moose. Now I have to pay attention because of the way namespaces and packages are orthogonal in Smalltalk. I have a question: when we will be loading java code in Moose what will be a Java package? a moose namespace or a moose package?
If this is a namespace then I will have certainly to duplicate the logic in package and namespace and I would like to avoid that. Does anybody have an idea how to avoid that?
Stef _______________________________________________ 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
"It's not how it is, it is how we see it."
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
Stef
On 25 nov. 07, at 13:51, Tudor Girba wrote:
In the latest FAMIX proposed by Adrian, Package and Namespaces are both ScopedEntities. The reason for this is exactly to not clone the code in both namespace and in package.
I am not sure that I like that though because the semantics of Package is not the one of Scoped.
Doru
On Nov 25, 2007, at 1:39 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
Hi
I'm about to write a new package reference plugin for moose. Now I have to pay attention because of the way namespaces and packages are orthogonal in Smalltalk. I have a question: when we will be loading java code in Moose what will be a Java package? a moose namespace or a moose package?
If this is a namespace then I will have certainly to duplicate the logic in package and namespace and I would like to avoid that. Does anybody have an idea how to avoid that?
Stef _______________________________________________ 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
"It's not how it is, it is how we see it."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On (25/11/07 15:13), Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
From: Stéphane Ducasse stephane.ducasse@univ-savoie.fr To: Related to the development of Moose and other related tools moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch Subject: [Moose-dev] Re: About a reference plugin Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:13:47 +0100
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Stef
On 25 nov. 07, at 13:51, Tudor Girba wrote:
In the latest FAMIX proposed by Adrian, Package and Namespaces are both ScopedEntities. The reason for this is exactly to not clone the code in both namespace and in package.
I am not sure that I like that though because the semantics of Package is not the one of Scoped.
Doru
On Nov 25, 2007, at 1:39 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
Hi
I'm about to write a new package reference plugin for moose. Now I have to pay attention because of the way namespaces and packages are orthogonal in Smalltalk. I have a question: when we will be loading java code in Moose what will be a Java package? a moose namespace or a moose package?
If this is a namespace then I will have certainly to duplicate the logic in package and namespace and I would like to avoid that. Does anybody have an idea how to avoid that?
Stef _______________________________________________ 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
"It's not how it is, it is how we see it."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi all,
In the importer I wrote, I have the following mappings:
* Java packages -> Famix namespaces (Simply because java packages have control over name scoping). * Java jar files -> Famix packages (it's the closest thing that corresponds to any 'packaging' thing in Java).
I think it's strange to map Java packages onto Famix packages.. Just my 2 cents ;-)
Johan
ps: I will be looking at using the existing Eclipse importer directly from JavaConnect/Penumbra too.
On 25 Nov 2007, at 16:25, Toon Verwaest wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
---------------------------- Johan Brichau johan.brichau@uclouvain.be
On 26 nov. 07, at 09:09, Johan Brichau wrote:
Hi all,
In the importer I wrote, I have the following mappings:
- Java packages -> Famix namespaces (Simply because java packages
have control over name scoping).
- Java jar files -> Famix packages (it's the closest thing that
corresponds to any 'packaging' thing in Java).
I think it's strange to map Java packages onto Famix packages.. Just my 2 cents ;-)
Oops. I think that I would like to be much clever and know the answer. It seems that I will start to work on package and see how it goes. I have the impression that from a scenario point of view, I want to see how a class refer/is referenced by other classes. and this also at the level of the packages. so the scoping of the container is important now this would push me to put java package into namespace but to analyse I would like the inverse. So please help me.
Stef
Johan
ps: I will be looking at using the existing Eclipse importer directly from JavaConnect/Penumbra too.
On 25 Nov 2007, at 16:25, Toon Verwaest wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Johan Brichau johan.brichau@uclouvain.be
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi all, in the attachement you find what it seems to be a solution to what you ask Stephane:
no?
bests hani
On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:58 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On 26 nov. 07, at 09:09, Johan Brichau wrote:
Hi all,
In the importer I wrote, I have the following mappings:
- Java packages -> Famix namespaces (Simply because java packages
have control over name scoping).
- Java jar files -> Famix packages (it's the closest thing that
corresponds to any 'packaging' thing in Java).
I think it's strange to map Java packages onto Famix packages.. Just my 2 cents ;-)
Oops. I think that I would like to be much clever and know the answer. It seems that I will start to work on package and see how it goes. I have the impression that from a scenario point of view, I want to see how a class refer/is referenced by other classes. and this also at the level of the packages. so the scoping of the container is important now this would push me to put java package into namespace but to analyse I would like the inverse. So please help me.
Stef
Johan
ps: I will be looking at using the existing Eclipse importer directly from JavaConnect/Penumbra too.
On 25 Nov 2007, at 16:25, Toon Verwaest wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Johan Brichau johan.brichau@uclouvain.be
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi every one, in the past i tried to implement methods in FAMIX to handel the different types of dependencies between software entities. Now i have some thing like this:
Dependencies: Two subtypes of dependencies can occur: 1)References: based either on methods invocations or on classes accesses: a)Invocations: Where the method's signature is explicitly used. Two categories of invocations can occur: a1)Sure invocations: the receiving variable of the invocation is either -a class: {C1.m1 --> C3.new} is a sure outgoing invocation. -Or an implicit variable (self/super): {C2.m1 --> C1.m1} {C2.m2 --> C2.m1} represent also sure outgoing invocations. In consequence, I say that: C1 surely refers to C3, and C2 surely refers to C1, ... etc. a2)Potential invocations: the type of the receiving variable is not known: {C1.m1, C2.m1, and C4.m1} are all potentially invoked by C1.m1. In consequence, I say that {C2 and C4} are potentially referenced by C1.
b)Access or Static-References: where the name of the class is explicitly used: {C1.m1 --> C4} is a static reference.
2)Inheritance.
Now I work to clean up my code and i need your ideas about the vocabularies that i have used: invokedMethods/requestorMethods: -sureInvokedMethods/sureRequestorMethods -potentialInvokedMethods/potentialRequestorMethods referencedClasses/referencingClasses, ...etc. -sureReferencedClasses/sureReferencingClasses, ...etc. -potentialReferencedClasses/potentialReferencingClasses, ...etc. -staticReferencedClasses/staticReferencingClasses, ...etc. inheritedClasses/inheritedByClasses, ...etc. neededClasses/dependentClasses, ...etc.
do you have another proposition than using 'sure', 'potential', 'static' words? do you have any comment about the different categories of dependencies that i have used?
bests, hani
On Nov 27, 2007, at 15:29 PM, Hani ABDEEN wrote:
Hi all, in the attachement you find what it seems to be a solution to what you ask Stephane:
no?
bests hani
On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:58 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On 26 nov. 07, at 09:09, Johan Brichau wrote:
Hi all,
In the importer I wrote, I have the following mappings:
- Java packages -> Famix namespaces (Simply because java packages
have control over name scoping).
- Java jar files -> Famix packages (it's the closest thing that
corresponds to any 'packaging' thing in Java).
I think it's strange to map Java packages onto Famix packages.. Just my 2 cents ;-)
Oops. I think that I would like to be much clever and know the answer. It seems that I will start to work on package and see how it goes. I have the impression that from a scenario point of view, I want to see how a class refer/is referenced by other classes. and this also at the level of the packages. so the scoping of the container is important now this would push me to put java package into namespace but to analyse I would like the inverse. So please help me.
Stef
Johan
ps: I will be looking at using the existing Eclipse importer directly from JavaConnect/Penumbra too.
On 25 Nov 2007, at 16:25, Toon Verwaest wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Johan Brichau johan.brichau@uclouvain.be
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi the list
could you react on this email? Because the question of transitive relationship is important.
Stef
On 27 nov. 07, at 15:29, Hani ABDEEN wrote:
Hi all, in the attachement you find what it seems to be a solution to what you ask Stephane:<navigationSolution.pdf>no?
bests hani
On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:58 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On 26 nov. 07, at 09:09, Johan Brichau wrote:
Hi all,
In the importer I wrote, I have the following mappings:
- Java packages -> Famix namespaces (Simply because java packages
have control over name scoping).
- Java jar files -> Famix packages (it's the closest thing that
corresponds to any 'packaging' thing in Java).
I think it's strange to map Java packages onto Famix packages.. Just my 2 cents ;-)
Oops. I think that I would like to be much clever and know the answer. It seems that I will start to work on package and see how it goes. I have the impression that from a scenario point of view, I want to see how a class refer/is referenced by other classes. and this also at the level of the packages. so the scoping of the container is important now this would push me to put java package into namespace but to analyse I would like the inverse. So please help me.
Stef
Johan
ps: I will be looking at using the existing Eclipse importer directly from JavaConnect/Penumbra too.
On 25 Nov 2007, at 16:25, Toon Verwaest wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Johan Brichau johan.brichau@uclouvain.be
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi,
We always mapped Java packages on FAMIXNamespaces. Namespaces can be nested. Like Johan said, FAMIXNamespace should be used for entities that provide name scoping. We never used the FAMIXPackage until now for Java, but I like the suggestion of Johan to map jar files on them.
Why do you say that you would want to map Java Package on FAMIXPackage? Only to reuse implementation, or are there other reasons?
As for modeling references, I think I start to like the solution of Hani and Adrian to have a Container superclass and to put all these transitive methods in there.
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi the list
could you react on this email? Because the question of transitive relationship is important.
Stef
On 27 nov. 07, at 15:29, Hani ABDEEN wrote:
Hi all, in the attachement you find what it seems to be a solution to what you ask Stephane:<navigationSolution.pdf>no?
bests hani
On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:58 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On 26 nov. 07, at 09:09, Johan Brichau wrote:
Hi all,
In the importer I wrote, I have the following mappings:
- Java packages -> Famix namespaces (Simply because java packages
have control over name scoping).
- Java jar files -> Famix packages (it's the closest thing that
corresponds to any 'packaging' thing in Java).
I think it's strange to map Java packages onto Famix packages.. Just my 2 cents ;-)
Oops. I think that I would like to be much clever and know the answer. It seems that I will start to work on package and see how it goes. I have the impression that from a scenario point of view, I want to see how a class refer/is referenced by other classes. and this also at the level of the packages. so the scoping of the container is important now this would push me to put java package into namespace but to analyse I would like the inverse. So please help me.
Stef
Johan
ps: I will be looking at using the existing Eclipse importer directly from JavaConnect/Penumbra too.
On 25 Nov 2007, at 16:25, Toon Verwaest wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Johan Brichau johan.brichau@uclouvain.be
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
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
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
On 3 déc. 07, at 22:52, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
We always mapped Java packages on FAMIXNamespaces. Namespaces can be nested. Like Johan said, FAMIXNamespace should be used for entities that provide name scoping. We never used the FAMIXPackage until now for Java, but I like the suggestion of Johan to map jar files on them.
Why do you say that you would want to map Java Package on FAMIXPackage? Only to reuse implementation, or are there other reasons?
I had the impression that we do not use the model. So this is difficult to say something. I do not really deeply understand what is a scopable entity because so far I did not write a analyser actually using a scope :). So besides joking a bit to stress my point I had the impression that I do not really know if scope is the key difference between namespace and package.
As for modeling references, I think I start to like the solution of Hani and Adrian to have a Container superclass and to put all these transitive methods in there.
Yes in fact traits are missing. :)
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi the list
could you react on this email? Because the question of transitive relationship is important.
Stef
On 27 nov. 07, at 15:29, Hani ABDEEN wrote:
Hi all, in the attachement you find what it seems to be a solution to what you ask Stephane:<navigationSolution.pdf>no?
bests hani
On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:58 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On 26 nov. 07, at 09:09, Johan Brichau wrote:
Hi all,
In the importer I wrote, I have the following mappings:
- Java packages -> Famix namespaces (Simply because java packages
have control over name scoping).
- Java jar files -> Famix packages (it's the closest thing that
corresponds to any 'packaging' thing in Java).
I think it's strange to map Java packages onto Famix packages.. Just my 2 cents ;-)
Oops. I think that I would like to be much clever and know the answer. It seems that I will start to work on package and see how it goes. I have the impression that from a scenario point of view, I want to see how a class refer/is referenced by other classes. and this also at the level of the packages. so the scoping of the container is important now this would push me to put java package into namespace but to analyse I would like the inverse. So please help me.
Stef
Johan
ps: I will be looking at using the existing Eclipse importer directly from JavaConnect/Penumbra too.
On 25 Nov 2007, at 16:25, Toon Verwaest wrote:
> I thought about it and I would like to have > > java package -> extracted as package > smalltalk package -> as package > smalltalk namespace -> as namespace > > Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Johan Brichau johan.brichau@uclouvain.be
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
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
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On Dec 4, 2007, at 08:13 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On 3 déc. 07, at 22:52, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
We always mapped Java packages on FAMIXNamespaces. Namespaces can be nested. Like Johan said, FAMIXNamespace should be used for entities that provide name scoping. We never used the FAMIXPackage until now for Java, but I like the suggestion of Johan to map jar files on them.
Why do you say that you would want to map Java Package on FAMIXPackage? Only to reuse implementation, or are there other reasons?
Actually, only to reuse implementation. But in another hand it is always good to have a simple/user-friendly meta-model. If you see that the only difference between Java packages(namespaces) and Smaltalk packages is the scoping, we can thus mapping Java namespaces to FAMIXPackage in the case that FAMIXContainer has the property #scope {boolean}. However we still need FAMIXNamespace because in VW we have Packages and Namespaces. In any case, FAMIXPackage should not be a subclass of FAMIXScopingEntity, but simply a direct subclass of FAMIXContainerEntity
I had the impression that we do not use the model. So this is difficult to say something. I do not really deeply understand what is a scopable entity because so far I did not write a analyser actually using a scope :). So besides joking a bit to stress my point I had the impression that I do not really know if scope is the key difference between namespace and package.
As for modeling references, I think I start to like the solution of Hani and Adrian to have a Container superclass and to put all these transitive methods in there.
Yes in fact traits are missing. :)
Cheers, Doru
On Dec 3, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Hi the list
could you react on this email? Because the question of transitive relationship is important.
Stef
On 27 nov. 07, at 15:29, Hani ABDEEN wrote:
Hi all, in the attachement you find what it seems to be a solution to what you ask Stephane:<navigationSolution.pdf>no?
bests hani
On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:58 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On 26 nov. 07, at 09:09, Johan Brichau wrote:
Hi all,
In the importer I wrote, I have the following mappings:
- Java packages -> Famix namespaces (Simply because java packages
have control over name scoping).
- Java jar files -> Famix packages (it's the closest thing that
corresponds to any 'packaging' thing in Java).
I think it's strange to map Java packages onto Famix packages.. Just my 2 cents ;-)
Oops. I think that I would like to be much clever and know the answer. It seems that I will start to work on package and see how it goes. I have the impression that from a scenario point of view, I want to see how a class refer/is referenced by other classes. and this also at the level of the packages. so the scoping of the container is important now this would push me to put java package into namespace but to analyse I would like the inverse. So please help me.
Stef
Johan
ps: I will be looking at using the existing Eclipse importer directly from JavaConnect/Penumbra too.
On 25 Nov 2007, at 16:25, Toon Verwaest wrote:
>> I thought about it and I would like to have >> >> java package -> extracted as package >> smalltalk package -> as package >> smalltalk namespace -> as namespace >> >> Is it what you had in mind? > > I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java > either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but > unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right? > > Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from > java > packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and > write > code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important > because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java). > > What is your opinion about the matter? > @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :) >
Johan Brichau johan.brichau@uclouvain.be
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
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
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
I have the impression that this is an clear example of trait need.
stef
On 27 nov. 07, at 15:29, Hani ABDEEN wrote:
Hi all, in the attachement you find what it seems to be a solution to what you ask Stephane:<navigationSolution.pdf>no?
bests hani
On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:58 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On 26 nov. 07, at 09:09, Johan Brichau wrote:
Hi all,
In the importer I wrote, I have the following mappings:
- Java packages -> Famix namespaces (Simply because java packages
have control over name scoping).
- Java jar files -> Famix packages (it's the closest thing that
corresponds to any 'packaging' thing in Java).
I think it's strange to map Java packages onto Famix packages.. Just my 2 cents ;-)
Oops. I think that I would like to be much clever and know the answer. It seems that I will start to work on package and see how it goes. I have the impression that from a scenario point of view, I want to see how a class refer/is referenced by other classes. and this also at the level of the packages. so the scoping of the container is important now this would push me to put java package into namespace but to analyse I would like the inverse. So please help me.
Stef
Johan
ps: I will be looking at using the existing Eclipse importer directly from JavaConnect/Penumbra too.
On 25 Nov 2007, at 16:25, Toon Verwaest wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Johan Brichau johan.brichau@uclouvain.be
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Not really since java packages have more scope than Smalltalk ones. See what johan is saying.
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
You lost me.
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Yes please. I would like that we arrive to a kind of consensu
My goal is to see if we can avoid duplicating navigation logic such as a method (in A) refers to a class (B) so a class (A) refers to another class (B), so a package(A) refers to package (B)
In the past we duplicated all the logic for package in namespace too. And this is not cool.
Stef
Hi,
I uploaded the beta 14 version of Famix that Adrian sent a while back: http://moose.unibe.ch/docs/famix/famix3.0/famix3.0beta14
In this solution Namespace and Package share the same superclass (Scoped). The idea would be to put in Scoped the common behavior.
As I said before, from a modeling point of view it's not that nice. But from a pragmatic reason, it might be.
I would rather favor modeling over implementation, but it would be good to hear other points of view :).
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Not really since java packages have more scope than Smalltalk ones. See what johan is saying.
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
You lost me.
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Yes please. I would like that we arrive to a kind of consensu
My goal is to see if we can avoid duplicating navigation logic such as a method (in A) refers to a class (B) so a class (A) refers to another class (B), so a package(A) refers to package (B)
In the past we duplicated all the logic for package in namespace too. And this is not cool.
Stef
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
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
I know that adrian discussed with hani to have a ContianerEntity above Package and scopingEntity so that we could share code. May be traits are just missing :)
But yes for me I would really like to get as much as input as possible.
For example I'm wondering how to handle transitive interface: m refer to A => classof m refer to A => package(classof m) refer to package(A)
same for invocation
and with the wish to have a nice interface and not an interface explosion
Stef
On 26 nov. 07, at 16:49, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
I uploaded the beta 14 version of Famix that Adrian sent a while back: http://moose.unibe.ch/docs/famix/famix3.0/famix3.0beta14
In this solution Namespace and Package share the same superclass (Scoped). The idea would be to put in Scoped the common behavior.
As I said before, from a modeling point of view it's not that nice. But from a pragmatic reason, it might be.
I would rather favor modeling over implementation, but it would be good to hear other points of view :).
Cheers, Doru
On Nov 26, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Not really since java packages have more scope than Smalltalk ones. See what johan is saying.
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
You lost me.
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Yes please. I would like that we arrive to a kind of consensu
My goal is to see if we can avoid duplicating navigation logic such as a method (in A) refers to a class (B) so a class (A) refers to another class (B), so a package(A) refers to package (B)
In the past we duplicated all the logic for package in namespace too. And this is not cool.
Stef
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
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Not really since java packages have more scope than Smalltalk ones. See what johan is saying.
Euhm... I am saying something very similar to what johan and you say, in that piece. Johan just transforms this statement into saying that since this information is "double", lets throw the namespace version away (since it is not nested, while packages -are-, so packages are the greater source of information); and move the package version as the namespace version, since they also affect how classes are scoped.
This is ok on the one hand, however, if we would do analysis based on this setting, considering namespaces to be scoped and lookup to go from more detailed to less detailed, this analysis on java applications would fail because unlike how it would appear, the namespaces aren't actually scoped.
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
You lost me.
This is also what I am saying here. An example:
package A contains package B. This results in having a package B nested in a package A; but next to that, it results in 2 namespaces namespace A and namespace A::B, which are not nested. Thus just replacing the word package by namespace,... well... is fine by me since it seems logical. But... handle with care.
What is your opinion about the matter? @Sandro: get involved , this concerns you too, obviously :)
Yes please. I would like that we arrive to a kind of consensu
My goal is to see if we can avoid duplicating navigation logic such as a method (in A) refers to a class (B) so a class (A) refers to another class (B), so a package(A) refers to package (B)
In the past we duplicated all the logic for package in namespace too. And this is not cool.
I can only agree on this. Data and logic should be handled as memory and processor friendly as possible. Until recently I was working on a 1ghz laptop with 300 meg of RAM. Can you imagine the horror?
Toon
On 27 nov. 07, at 02:02, Toon Verwaest wrote:
Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I thought about it and I would like to have
java package -> extracted as package smalltalk package -> as package smalltalk namespace -> as namespace
Is it what you had in mind?
I don't necessarily think that package equals namespace in Java either. There are the same amount of namespaces as packages, but unlike packages, the namespaces are not nested, right?
Not really since java packages have more scope than Smalltalk ones. See what johan is saying.
Euhm... I am saying something very similar to what johan and you say,
Ok so I did not understand it.
in that piece. Johan just transforms this statement into saying that since this information is "double", lets throw the namespace version away (since it is not nested, while packages -are-, so packages are the greater source of information); and move the package version as the namespace version, since they also affect how classes are scoped.
This is ok on the one hand, however, if we would do analysis based on this setting, considering namespaces to be scoped and lookup to go from more detailed to less detailed, this analysis on java applications would fail because unlike how it would appear, the namespaces aren't actually scoped.
I'm not sure that I get it. I have the impression that we need a scenario to understand how we could model the interaction between package and namespace But I do not find one besides I want to analyze references between packages (and it may involved namespaces in java and VW but not in Squeak for example).
Well on the other hand, namespaces are obviously deducable from java packages, so I guess it makes sense to just have packages and write code to get the namespace info (which is more or less important because package belongsTo != namespace belongsTo for java).
This is also what I am saying here. An example:
package A contains package B. This results in having a package B nested in a package A; but next to that, it results in 2 namespaces namespace A and namespace A::B, which are not nested.
yes. for me a package contains entities: classes methods but their names are looked in a flat way. Now for a namespace it contains classes methods.... but names are looked up in a scoped way. So may be namespace is a kind of packages at the end.
Thus just replacing the word package by namespace,... well... is fine by me since it seems logical. But... handle with care.
So can you sum up in another email what would be your solution because I'm confused.
In the past we duplicated all the logic for package in namespace too. And this is not cool.
So does anybody have an idea how to handle transitive closure of relationship.
I can only agree on this. Data and logic should be handled as memory and processor friendly as possible. Until recently I was working on a 1ghz laptop with 300 meg of RAM. Can you imagine the horror?
Yes but may be this should not be our target application :)
On 25 nov. 07, at 13:51, Tudor Girba wrote:
In the latest FAMIX proposed by Adrian, Package and Namespaces are both ScopedEntities. The reason for this is exactly to not clone the code in both namespace and in package.
the problem is that Smalltalk package does not give any scope.
so I do not know. may be with the nulStrateg scope
stef
I am not sure that I like that though because the semantics of Package is not the one of Scoped.
Doru
On Nov 25, 2007, at 1:39 PM, stephane ducasse wrote:
Hi
I'm about to write a new package reference plugin for moose. Now I have to pay attention because of the way namespaces and packages are orthogonal in Smalltalk. I have a question: when we will be loading java code in Moose what will be a Java package? a moose namespace or a moose package?
If this is a namespace then I will have certainly to duplicate the logic in package and namespace and I would like to avoid that. Does anybody have an idea how to avoid that?
Stef _______________________________________________ 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
"It's not how it is, it is how we see it."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-
Hani Abdeen -
Hani ABDEEN -
Johan Brichau -
stephane ducasse -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Toon Verwaest -
Toon Verwaest -
Tudor Girba