30 Mar
2011
30 Mar
'11
4:43 p.m.
Hi all, using inFusion to get an MSE model from Java, I saw that the tool
generates a FAMIX.Class for generic types used in parameters, for example:
public interface AnInterface<T> {
void doSomething(T param);
}
Will generate a FAMIX.Class for T, and a reference to that class for the
declaredType of "param".
Is this the way to describe generic parameters in an MSE file or is a bug?
Thanks,
Diego
30 Mar
30 Mar
7:59 p.m.
Hi Diego,
This part is under works.
First, FAMIX now supports Java Generics with ParameterizedType and ParameterizableClass.
Second, both inFusion and VerveineJ will populate this information in the actual models.
Cheers,
Doru
On 30 Mar 2011, at 16:43, Diego Fernandez wrote:
Hi all, using inFusion to get an MSE model from Java,
I saw that the tool generates a FAMIX.Class for generic types used in parameters, for
example:
public interface AnInterface<T> {
void doSomething(T param);
}
Will generate a FAMIX.Class for T, and a reference to that class for the declaredType of
"param".
Is this the way to describe generic parameters in an MSE file or is a bug?
Thanks,
Diego
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Value is always contextual."
11:44 p.m.
Speaking of that, I have a doubt:
If I have a declaration: Map<String,Object> anAttribute;
I will create a ParameterizedType (named Map) with TypeParameters String and Object; and
pointing to its ParameterizableClass Map (this time the generic definition).
What should be the container of the ParameterizedType?
At first, I thought I would define it as an internal type of the class owning
'anAttribute' because the parameterizedType is actually created at this very
moment.
But then it could also be owned by 'java.lang' the package that owns the
ParameterizableClass Map.
Having 'anAttribute' appearing in moose with:
"DeclaredType:
some::package::A_Class::Map<java::lang::String,java::lang::Object>"
can be confusing. And it would get even worst if we were considering a method's
parameter, whereas:
"DeclaredType: java::util::Map<java::lang::String,java::lang::Object>"
seems to be more intuitive.
But on the other hand, we loose some information in the second case.
nicolas
----- Mail original -----
De: "Tudor Girba"
<tudor.girba(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mercredi 30 Mars 2011 19:59:55
Objet: [Moose-dev] Re: FAMIX and Java Generics
Hi Diego,
This part is under works.
First, FAMIX now supports Java Generics with ParameterizedType and
ParameterizableClass. Second, both inFusion and VerveineJ will
populate this information in the actual models.
Cheers,
Doru
On 30 Mar 2011, at 16:43, Diego Fernandez wrote:
Hi all, using inFusion to get an MSE model from
Java, I saw that the
tool generates a FAMIX.Class for generic types used in parameters,
for example:
public interface AnInterface<T> {
void doSomething(T param);
}
Will generate a FAMIX.Class for T, and a reference to that class for
the declaredType of "param".
Is this the way to describe generic parameters in an MSE file or is
a bug?
Thanks,
Diego
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Value is always contextual."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
31 Mar
31 Mar
9:09 a.m.
Hi Nicolas,
On 30 Mar 2011, at 23:44, Nicolas Anquetil wrote:
Speaking of that, I have a doubt:
If I have a declaration: Map<String,Object> anAttribute;
I will create a ParameterizedType (named Map) with TypeParameters String and Object; and
pointing to its ParameterizableClass Map (this time the generic definition).
What should be the container of the ParameterizedType?
This is a very good question.
At first, I thought I would define it as an internal
type of the class owning 'anAttribute' because the parameterizedType is actually
created at this very moment.
Yes, I prefer this solution.
But then it could also be owned by 'java.lang'
the package that owns the ParameterizableClass Map.
Having 'anAttribute' appearing in moose with:
"DeclaredType:
some::package::A_Class::Map<java::lang::String,java::lang::Object>"
can be confusing. And it would get even worst if we were considering a method's
parameter, whereas:
"DeclaredType: java::util::Map<java::lang::String,java::lang::Object>"
seems to be more intuitive.
But on the other hand, we loose some information in the second case.
This is printing problem and can be solved at that level. ParameterizedType also has a
parameterizableClass property, and this can be used for pretty printing.
Cheers,
Doru
nicolas
----- Mail original -----
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
De: "Tudor Girba"
<tudor.girba(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mercredi 30 Mars 2011 19:59:55
Objet: [Moose-dev] Re: FAMIX and Java Generics
Hi Diego,
This part is under works.
First, FAMIX now supports Java Generics with ParameterizedType and
ParameterizableClass. Second, both inFusion and VerveineJ will
populate this information in the actual models.
Cheers,
Doru
On 30 Mar 2011, at 16:43, Diego Fernandez wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi all, using inFusion to get an MSE model from
Java, I saw that the
tool generates a FAMIX.Class for generic types used in parameters,
for example:
public interface AnInterface<T> {
void doSomething(T param);
}
Will generate a FAMIX.Class for T, and a reference to that class for
the declaredType of "param".
Is this the way to describe generic parameters in an MSE file or is
a bug?
Thanks,
Diego
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Value is always contextual."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
5:15 p.m.
Doru thanks for the info.
Where I can find information about the FAMIX representation of each code
entity (in docs or in smalltalk code)?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor.girba(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nicolas,
On 30 Mar 2011, at 23:44, Nicolas Anquetil wrote:
Speaking of that, I have a doubt:
If I have a declaration: Map<String,Object> anAttribute;
I will create a ParameterizedType (named Map) with TypeParameters String
and
Object; and pointing to its ParameterizableClass Map (this time the
generic definition).
What should be the container of the ParameterizedType?
This is a very good question.
At first, I thought I would define it as an
internal type of the class
owning 'anAttribute' because the
parameterizedType is actually created at
this very moment.
Yes, I prefer this solution.
But then it could also be owned by
'java.lang' the package that owns the
ParameterizableClass Map.
Having 'anAttribute' appearing in moose with:
"DeclaredType:
some::package::A_Class::Map<java::lang::String,java::lang::Object>"
can be confusing. And it would get even worst if we were considering a
method's parameter, whereas:
"DeclaredType: java::util::Map<java::lang::String,java::lang::Object>"
seems to be more intuitive.
But on the other hand, we loose some information in the second case.
This is printing problem and can be solved at that level. ParameterizedType
also has a parameterizableClass property, and this can be used for pretty
printing.
Cheers,
Doru
nicolas
----- Mail original -----
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
De: "Tudor Girba"
<tudor.girba(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mercredi 30 Mars 2011 19:59:55
Objet: [Moose-dev] Re: FAMIX and Java Generics
Hi Diego,
This part is under works.
First, FAMIX now supports Java Generics with ParameterizedType and
ParameterizableClass. Second, both inFusion and VerveineJ will
populate this information in the actual models.
Cheers,
Doru
On 30 Mar 2011, at 16:43, Diego Fernandez wrote:
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi all, using inFusion to get an MSE model from
Java, I saw that the
tool generates a FAMIX.Class for generic types used in parameters,
for example:
public interface AnInterface<T> {
void doSomething(T param);
}
Will generate a FAMIX.Class for T, and a reference to that class for
the declaredType of "param".
Is this the way to describe generic parameters in an MSE file or is
a bug?
Thanks,
Diego
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Value is always contextual."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
5015
days inactive
5016
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Diego Fernandez -
Nicolas Anquetil -
Tudor Girba