25 Nov
2007
25 Nov
'07
1:39 p.m.
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
25 Nov
25 Nov
1:51 p.m.
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(a)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."
3:13 p.m.
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(a)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(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
3:17 p.m.
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(a)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(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev 
4:25 p.m.
On (25/11/07 15:13), Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
From: Stéphane Ducasse
<stephane.ducasse(a)univ-savoie.fr>
To: Related to the development of Moose and other related tools
<moose-dev(a)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:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev 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(a)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(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev 
26 Nov
26 Nov
9:09 a.m.
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:
----------------------------
Johan Brichau
johan.brichau(a)uclouvain.be
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 :)
2:13 p.m.
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).
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
2:58 p.m.
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:
----------------------------
Johan Brichau
johan.brichau(a)uclouvain.be
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)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?
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 :)
4:49 p.m.
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:
Not really since java packages have more scope than Smalltalk ones.
See what johan is saying.
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
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).
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(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
6:19 p.m.
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:
Not really since java packages have more scope than Smalltalk ones.
See what johan is saying.
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Being happy is a matter of choice."
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).
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(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev 
27 Nov
27 Nov
2:02 a.m.
Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
11:27 a.m.
On 27 nov. 07, at 02:02, Toon Verwaest wrote:
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.
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 :)
Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
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.
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?
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. 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.
3:29 p.m.
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:
----------------------------
Johan Brichau
johan.brichau(a)uclouvain.be
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)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?
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 :)
6:01 p.m.
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:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)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 ;-)
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:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)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?
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(a)uclouvain.be
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
3 Dec
3 Dec
12:26 p.m.
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:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)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?
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(a)uclouvain.be
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
12:26 p.m.
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:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)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?
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(a)uclouvain.be
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
10:52 p.m.
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:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.tudorgirba.com/blog
"Next time you see your life passing by, say 'hi' and get to know her."
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:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
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(a)uclouvain.be
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
4 Dec
4 Dec
8:13 a.m.
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:
--
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(a)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:<navigationSolution.pdf>no?
bests
hani
On Nov 26, 2007, at 14:58 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
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(a)uclouvain.be
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
5 Dec
5 Dec
11:30 a.m.
On Dec 4, 2007, at 08:13 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On 3 déc. 07, at 22:52, Tudor Girba wrote:
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
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:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)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:
--
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(a)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:<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(a)uclouvain.be
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
5986
days inactive
5996
days old
18 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Hani Abdeen -
Hani ABDEEN -
Johan Brichau -
stephane ducasse -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Toon Verwaest -
Toon Verwaest -
Tudor Girba