I'm confused Where is the reference implementation for Famix 3.0 right now? Because when I look at those documents http://moose.unibe.ch/docs/famix/famix3.0?_s=qCdqiYvltMRJXWPd&_k=KPed... Famix 3.0 beta 14 it does not match with what I found in the Squeak package. Namely, there is no incomingInvocations in the FAMIXEntity class. Also some methods such as Access>>isRead are not implemented. However, when I look at the generated code with Fame for Java and the mse file included (FAMIX30.fm3.mse), the attribute incomingInvocations is defined. However (another problem?), it is declared as an opposite to Invocation>>candidates, but this one declares BehaviouralEntity>>incomingInvocations as the opposite. So, I'm really confused. -- Simon Denier, PhD Postdoc, Ptidej Team DIRO, Université de Montréal _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

doru could we have the mse version of famix30? Stef On Oct 9, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for the trouble. FAMIX 3.0 is a construction site and the > information is not consistent. > > The website shows the beta 14 version which is about half a year old. > The current and running one can be found in the Famix-Specification > package in the http://www.squeaksource.com/Moose Squeak repository. > > I will try to put a new image and the specification online in the > following days. > > Cheers, > Doru > > On Oct 9, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Simon Denier wrote: > >> I'm confused >> >> Where is the reference implementation for Famix 3.0 right now? >> >> Because when I look at those documents >> http://moose.unibe.ch/docs/famix/famix3.0?_s=qCdqiYvltMRJXWPd&_k=KPed... >> Famix 3.0 beta 14 >> >> it does not match with what I found in the Squeak package. Namely, >> there is no incomingInvocations in the FAMIXEntity class. Also some >> methods such as Access>>isRead are not implemented. >> >> However, when I look at the generated code with Fame for Java and >> the mse file included (FAMIX30.fm3.mse), the attribute >> incomingInvocations is defined. However (another problem?), it is >> declared as an opposite to Invocation>>candidates, but this one >> declares BehaviouralEntity>>incomingInvocations as the opposite. >> >> So, I'm really confused. >> >> -- >> Simon Denier, PhD >> Postdoc, Ptidej Team >> DIRO, Université de Montréal >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > "To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen." > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Hi, Sorry for the trouble. FAMIX 3.0 is a construction site and the information is not consistent. The website shows the beta 14 version which is about half a year old. The current and running one can be found in the Famix-Specification package in the http://www.squeaksource.com/Moose Squeak repository. I will try to put a new image and the specification online in the following days. Cheers, Doru On Oct 9, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Simon Denier wrote: > I'm confused > > Where is the reference implementation for Famix 3.0 right now? > > Because when I look at those documents > http://moose.unibe.ch/docs/famix/famix3.0?_s=qCdqiYvltMRJXWPd&_k=KPed... > Famix 3.0 beta 14 > > it does not match with what I found in the Squeak package. Namely, > there is no incomingInvocations in the FAMIXEntity class. Also some > methods such as Access>>isRead are not implemented. > > However, when I look at the generated code with Fame for Java and > the mse file included (FAMIX30.fm3.mse), the attribute > incomingInvocations is defined. However (another problem?), it is > declared as an opposite to Invocation>>candidates, but this one > declares BehaviouralEntity>>incomingInvocations as the opposite. > > So, I'm really confused. > > -- > Simon Denier, PhD > Postdoc, Ptidej Team > DIRO, Université de Montréal > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 "To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

No, you had it right :). The only problem is that we cannot specify these derived options in Fame. In this case it is easy because it's just a negation, but in other cases it can be more complicated.

Cheers, Doru On Oct 10, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Simon Denier wrote: > Thanks for your clarification, it helps! > > Now I can compare the generated code under VW with Squeak (as well as > with Fame4Java but it's another story) > > The code seems fine except for Association>>below as well as > Access>>isRead > Both are implemented with 'self shoudBeImplemented' > Both are derived attributes > Association>>below is the opposite attribute of Association>>above > It seems obvious that isRead is derived from isWrite. > > there should be some code at least to update the one-to-one > relationship between above<->below. > > did I miss something? > > > On 9 oct. 08, at 14:53, Tudor Girba wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Sorry for the trouble. FAMIX 3.0 is a construction site and the >> information is not consistent. >> >> The website shows the beta 14 version which is about half a year >> old. >> The current and running one can be found in the Famix-Specification >> package in the http://www.squeaksource.com/Moose Squeak repository. >> >> I will try to put a new image and the specification online in the >> following days. >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> On Oct 9, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Simon Denier wrote: >> >>> I'm confused >>> >>> Where is the reference implementation for Famix 3.0 right now? >>> >>> Because when I look at those documents >>> http://moose.unibe.ch/docs/famix/famix3.0?_s=qCdqiYvltMRJXWPd&_k=KPed... >>> Famix 3.0 beta 14 >>> >>> it does not match with what I found in the Squeak package. Namely, >>> there is no incomingInvocations in the FAMIXEntity class. Also some >>> methods such as Access>>isRead are not implemented. >>> >>> However, when I look at the generated code with Fame for Java and >>> the mse file included (FAMIX30.fm3.mse), the attribute >>> incomingInvocations is defined. However (another problem?), it is >>> declared as an opposite to Invocation>>candidates, but this one >>> declares BehaviouralEntity>>incomingInvocations as the opposite. >>> >>> So, I'm really confused. >>> >>> -- >>> Simon Denier, PhD >>> Postdoc, Ptidej Team >>> DIRO, Université de Montréal >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> "To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen." >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > > -- > Simon Denier, PhD > Postdoc, Ptidej Team > DIRO, Université de Montréal > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 "Beauty is where we see it." _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

I am lost. Can you provide me a precise bug report?

cheers, AA On 13 Oct 2008, at 11:01 , Simon Denier wrote: > > On 12 oct. 08, at 12:12, Tudor Girba wrote: > >> No, you had it right :). >> >> The only problem is that we cannot specify these derived options in >> Fame. In this case it is easy because it's just a negation, but in >> other cases it can be more complicated. > > Sorry for the cross-post, but since I guess it can be of interest > for eberybody. > > So I understand the rationale, but the squeak code generator and > the Java code generator are not consistent. > > - in Java some code is generated, more specifically in Famix3: > - above<->below is a one-to-one relationship and the update code > can be generated (as is the case in Fame Java) > - isRead is implemented as a normal attribute complete with an > instance variable, without any update code - but it should be a > derived attribute > - in squeak both are left as 'shouldBeImplemented' > > Actually I think that both are 50% right/50% wrong. Fame Java does > it right when generating the update code for one-one relationship, > but is wrong when it implements isRead - the derived property is > lost and this is something which is easily overlooked - as you say > it should be left as is. > > >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> On Oct 10, 2008, at 4:40 PM, Simon Denier wrote: >> >>> Thanks for your clarification, it helps! >>> >>> Now I can compare the generated code under VW with Squeak (as >>> well as >>> with Fame4Java but it's another story) >>> >>> The code seems fine except for Association>>below as well as >>> Access>>isRead >>> Both are implemented with 'self shoudBeImplemented' >>> Both are derived attributes >>> Association>>below is the opposite attribute of Association>>above >>> It seems obvious that isRead is derived from isWrite. >>> >>> there should be some code at least to update the one-to-one >>> relationship between above<->below. >>> >>> did I miss something? >>> _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Hi Doru, I would like to import Moose Package in a Moose Model, but I have an exception. The exception is : "Unhandled exception: NonBoolean". This appears on the Class "SampleData" When I delete this class, Moose package is imported. But this is not a good solution :) Have you any idea of the problem ? Thanks Jannik _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev