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
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
- 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.
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
> 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:
>> 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
>> The current and running one can be found in the Famix-Specification
>> package in the http://www.squeaksource.com/Moose
>> I will try to put a new image and the specification online in the
>> following days.
>> 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
>>> 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
>> "To lead is not to demand things, it is to make them happen."
>> Moose-dev mailing list
> Simon Denier, PhD
> Postdoc, Ptidej Team
> DIRO, Université de Montréal
> Moose-dev mailing list
"Beauty is where we see it."
Moose-dev mailing list
Simon Denier, PhD
Postdoc, Ptidej Team
DIRO, Université de Montréal