16 Jun
2010
16 Jun
'10
1:44 a.m.
Some people suggested trying moose for analysis of SAS programs, and I'm
trying to figure out where to start with the meta-modeling.
SAS is not object oriented, though parts of it could be imagined to be.
The main SAS code contains blocks of statements that begin with DATA or
PROC; each block could probably be thought of as a function--to be
precise, the application of a function.
If I want to make some new models, where do I start? FM3? FAMIX?
elsewhere? The 4.0 release announcement says FM3 and FAMIX3 are both
implemented in Fame, so maybe start with Fame? I've read some
documentation, but I can't tell.
My inspiration for the project is understanding how some SAS datasets
were produced. I have a system that creates numerous datasets, which
feed into later datasets, etc. This is split at least across a couple
of program files and it's really too complicated to keep in the brain.
If I get ambitious it would also be useful to trace where particular
variables came from, in the sense of both datasets and individual
expressions.
The only thing resembling a SAS parser I've run into (except for SAS,
which is closed source) is a Perl module, and it looked relatively
primitive. I've been using PetitParser, and at the point I started
thinking about what it would parse results into.
Thanks for any pointers.
Ross Boylan
16 Jun
16 Jun
2:17 a.m.
Hi Ross,
Some people suggested trying moose for analysis of SAS
programs, and
I'm
trying to figure out where to start with the meta-modeling.
Welcome to Moose :).
SAS is not object oriented, though parts of it could
be imagined to
be.
The main SAS code contains blocks of statements that begin with DATA
or
PROC; each block could probably be thought of as a function--to be
precise, the application of a function.
If I want to make some new models, where do I start? FM3? FAMIX?
elsewhere? The 4.0 release announcement says FM3 and FAMIX3 are both
implemented in Fame, so maybe start with Fame? I've read some
documentation, but I can't tell.
FAMIX is a meta-model, FM3 is the meta-meta-model. If a clarification
of terms is needed, you can check:
http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/subject-model-meta-model
The core of FAMIX models in a language independent fashion object-
oriented and procedural languages. You can see a diagrammatic overview
here:
http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/famix/core
I do not know SAS, but you should check to see if the concepts present
in FAMIX are of use to you. If yes, you can directly instantiate them
from your parser. If not, then you will want to code a new meta-model,
or extend the current ones to accommodate your needs. You can then
describe this new meta-model using FM3 (this is achieved via Smalltalk
pragmas) and you get a browser and import-export in the MSE format for
free.
Once you have your Smalltalk objects as instances of the meta-model,
you can then use Mondrian and Glamour for building visual tools, or
the MooseAlgos to express graph-specific algorithms.
Does this help?
Cheers,
Doru
My inspiration for the project is understanding how
some SAS datasets
were produced. I have a system that creates numerous datasets, which
feed into later datasets, etc. This is split at least across a couple
of program files and it's really too complicated to keep in the brain.
If I get ambitious it would also be useful to trace where particular
variables came from, in the sense of both datasets and individual
expressions.
The only thing resembling a SAS parser I've run into (except for SAS,
which is closed source) is a Perl module, and it looked relatively
primitive. I've been using PetitParser, and at the point I started
thinking about what it would parse results into.
Thanks for any pointers.
Ross Boylan
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Relationships are of two kinds: those we choose and those that
happen. They both matter."
2:27 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 02:17 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
I do not know SAS, but you should check to see if the concepts
present
in FAMIX are of use to you. If yes, you can directly instantiate
them
from your parser. If not, then you will want to code a new
meta-model,
or extend the current ones to accommodate your needs. You can then
describe this new meta-model using FM3 (this is achieved via
Smalltalk
pragmas) and you get a browser and import-export in the MSE format
for
free.
Once you have your Smalltalk objects as instances of the meta-model,
you can then use Mondrian and Glamour for building visual tools, or
the MooseAlgos to express graph-specific algorithms.
Does this help?
Well, I was hoping that I would need to specify the meta-model or
the
meta-meta-model, but not both. That is, I was hoping the tools could
build one out of the other. It sounds as if you're telling me I need to
do both.
I hope I'm misunderstanding :)
Also, is there a guide to what the pragmas are?
Ross
2:43 a.m.
Hi,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 02:27, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 02:17 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
You do not define the meta-meta-model, you use the existing one (FM3)
by just describing in your meta-model elements (classes and
attributes) using pragmas. That is, the meta-model holds the Smalltalk
implementation, while the pragmas provide a higher level description
for other kinds of manipulations.
I do not know SAS, but you should check to see if the concepts
present
in FAMIX are of use to you. If yes, you can directly instantiate
them
from your parser. If not, then you will want to code a new
meta-model,
or extend the current ones to accommodate your needs. You can then
describe this new meta-model using FM3 (this is achieved via
Smalltalk
pragmas) and you get a browser and import-export in the MSE format
for
free.
Once you have your Smalltalk objects as instances of the meta-model,
you can then use Mondrian and Glamour for building visual tools, or
the MooseAlgos to express graph-specific algorithms.
Does this help?
Well, I was hoping that I would need to specify the meta-model or
the
meta-meta-model, but not both. That is, I was hoping the tools could
build one out of the other. It sounds as if you're telling me I
need to
do both. I hope I'm misunderstanding :)
I think you are :)
Also, is there a guide to what the pragmas are?
We do not have much of a guide for the moment, but we have plenty of
examples. For a class named "C" with one attribute
"interestingAttribute" of type String, you have to define the
followings:
- On the class size:
annotation
<MSEClass: 'X'>
- On the instance side:
interestingAttribute
<MSEProperty: #interestingAttribute type: #String>
^ interestingAttribute
Cheers,
Doru
Ross
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
5:33 a.m.
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 02:43 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 02:27, Ross Boylan wrote:
So, rephrasing the question slightly, is there a way to generate the
smalltalk implementation directly from the pragmas? Or, even better, a
graphical tool that allows you to specify the model and produces
everything else from it?
On the pragmas, at least some of them are "documented" by the methods
FMPragmaProcessor>>processCompiledMethod:
MSEPragmaProcessor>>processClass:
There are some huge strings that are (meta-)*model specifications, e.g.,
FAMIXSpecifications>>famixCore30mse and their use by
FAMIXSpecifications>>generateFamixCore30. What role do they play in the
system?
Ross
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 02:17 +0200, Tudor Girba
wrote:
You do not define the meta-meta-model, you use the existing one (FM3)
by just describing in your meta-model elements (classes and
attributes) using pragmas. That is, the meta-model holds the Smalltalk
implementation, while the pragmas provide a higher level description
for other kinds of manipulations.
I do not know SAS, but you should check to see if the concepts
present
in FAMIX are of use to you. If yes, you can directly instantiate
them
from your parser. If not, then you will want to code a new
meta-model,
or extend the current ones to accommodate your needs. You can then
describe this new meta-model using FM3 (this is achieved via
Smalltalk
pragmas) and you get a browser and import-export in the MSE format
for
free.
Once you have your Smalltalk objects as instances of the meta-model,
you can then use Mondrian and Glamour for building visual tools, or
the MooseAlgos to express graph-specific algorithms.
Does this help?
Well, I was hoping that I would need to specify the meta-model or
the
meta-meta-model, but not both. That is, I was hoping the tools could
build one out of the other. It sounds as if you're telling me I
need to
do both. I hope I'm misunderstanding :)
I think you are :)
Also, is there a guide to what the pragmas are?
We do not have much of a guide for the moment, but we have plenty of
examples. For a class named "C" with one attribute
"interestingAttribute" of type String, you have to define the
followings:
- On the class size:
annotation
<MSEClass: 'X'>
- On the instance side:
interestingAttribute
<MSEProperty: #interestingAttribute type: #String>
^ interestingAttribute
Cheers,
Doru
9:37 a.m.
Hi,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 05:33, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 02:43 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
At this moment, there is no graphical tool to define the meta-model.
Hi,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 02:27, Ross Boylan wrote:
So, rephrasing the question slightly, is there a way to generate the
smalltalk implementation directly from the pragmas? Or, even
better, a
graphical tool that allows you to specify the model and produces
everything else from it? On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 02:17 +0200, Tudor Girba
wrote:
You do not define the meta-meta-model, you use the existing one (FM3)
by just describing in your meta-model elements (classes and
attributes) using pragmas. That is, the meta-model holds the
Smalltalk
implementation, while the pragmas provide a higher level description
for other kinds of manipulations.
I do not know SAS, but you should check to see if the concepts
present
in FAMIX are of use to you. If yes, you can directly instantiate
them
from your parser. If not, then you will want to code a new
meta-model,
or extend the current ones to accommodate your needs. You can then
describe this new meta-model using FM3 (this is achieved via
Smalltalk
pragmas) and you get a browser and import-export in the MSE format
for
free.
Once you have your Smalltalk objects as instances of the meta-
model,
you can then use Mondrian and Glamour for building visual tools, or
the MooseAlgos to express graph-specific algorithms.
Does this help?
Well, I was hoping that I would need to specify the meta-model or
the
meta-meta-model, but not both. That is, I was hoping the tools
could
build one out of the other. It sounds as if you're telling me I
need to
do both. I hope I'm misunderstanding :)
I think you are :)
Also, is there a guide to what the pragmas are?
We do not have much of a guide for the moment, but we have plenty of
examples. For a class named "C" with one attribute
"interestingAttribute" of type String, you have to define the
followings:
- On the class size:
annotation
<MSEClass: 'X'>
- On the instance side:
interestingAttribute
<MSEProperty: #interestingAttribute type: #String>
^ interestingAttribute
Cheers,
Doru On the pragmas, at least some of them are
"documented" by the methods
FMPragmaProcessor>>processCompiledMethod:
MSEPragmaProcessor>>processClass:
Those are all that are relevant for the meta-describing your meta-
model part.
There are some huge strings that are (meta-)*model
specifications,
e.g.,
FAMIXSpecifications>>famixCore30mse and their use by
FAMIXSpecifications>>generateFamixCore30. What role do they play in
the
system?
These strings are indeed the meta-model specifications written in the
MSE format. From an MSE format you can generate the Smalltalk
implementation and the other way around. For example, through the MSE
format we can import meta-models developed in another language and
generate the Smalltalk implementation.
As mentioned before, there is no support for graphical support for
writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
However, we do have a tool for browsing an existing meta-model:
http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/famix/meta-browser
Cheers,
Doru
Ross
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
9:17 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
As mentioned before, there is no support for graphical
support for
writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no facility
to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it couldn't
be done?
Ross
10:14 p.m.
Hi Ross,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :).
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
As mentioned before, there is no support for
graphical support for
writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no
facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
couldn't
be done?
10:36 p.m.
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:14 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Ross,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
Consider RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper>
<multivalued>
^hoard
^hoard is smalltalk code. You also have to create the instance
variable, define
hoard: aTreasure
hoard value: aTreasure
and
initialize
super initialize.
hoard := FMMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #keeper:.
killedBy := FMMultiMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #kills.
It's the redundancy, along with the possibilities for error that would
put the smalltalk and annotation out of sync, that concerns me (and that
I'm trying to avoid).
I do not in some other classes the names in the annotations and the
names of the methods and variables are not quite in sync, so maybe this
is a feature.
Ross
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba
wrote:
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :). As mentioned before, there is no support for
graphical support for
writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no
facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
couldn't
be done?
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
24 Jun
24 Jun
6:21 p.m.
Hi Ross
It's true that the metamodeling tools in Moose seem crude compared to what exist
elsewhere, but that's because we spend much more time using metamodels in new tools
than building metamodels :)
Here is the procedure when you need to define a completely new metamodel. You can still
make mistake when defining the metamodel but it eliminates most redundancy.
Once you have defined your metamodel, a set of lint rules can be run to check some aspects
of the metamodel (see below)
The essential pragma documentation is here (should be integrated in the book)
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/FameMetaDescriptions
Also, a good rule of thumb is to have MooseEntity as root instead of Object, it
facilitates integration with Moose tools.
1) Metamodel declaration
For the example below:
- Create class RPGDragon from a class browser
- add (class-side)
RPGDragon class>>annotation
<MSEClass: #Dragon super: #Object>
<package: #RPG>
Notice I just define the method with pragmas, I don't add any code in the body for
now.
For each attribute, I need to define the accessor (the getter, not the setter):
- define RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper><multivalued>
(same thing, method decl + pragma, no code)
No need to add the initialize, it will be defined by the generator.
2) To generate the implementation, do:
MooseModel generateClassesFrom: {RPGDragon. RPGHero. RPGWall} "collection of classes
defining the metamodel"
It should open a preview window, where you can see which method will be defined/overridden
by the generator. You can always tap Cmd-x to remove the selected definition (in case you
are doing some incremental metamodel definition).
You can repeat the generation step as much as you want, provided you understand it will
overwrite existing methods.
It works like a charm if you are doing your own metamodel. If you need to extend (as in
class extension, not the Java extend for inheritance) some existing Famix classes with new
attributes, you should be a bit more careful. Actually, when I need to extend an existing
metamodel with a few attributes, I just define the attributes directly in the Smalltalk
way (with pragmas AND method body). It's fast to do.
3) optionally, check that your metamodel is correct with lint rules (especially soundness
of opposite relationships): can be done from the meta browser...
On 16 juin 2010, at 22:36, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:14 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
Simon
Hi Ross,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
Consider RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper>
<multivalued>
^hoard
^hoard is smalltalk code. You also have to create the instance
variable, define
hoard: aTreasure
hoard value: aTreasure
and
initialize
super initialize.
hoard := FMMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #keeper:.
killedBy := FMMultiMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #kills.
It's the redundancy, along with the possibilities for error that would
put the smalltalk and annotation out of sync, that concerns me (and that
I'm trying to avoid).
I do not in some other classes the names in the annotations and the
names of the methods and variables are not quite in sync, so maybe this
is a feature.
Ross
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba
wrote:
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :). As mentioned before, there is no support for
graphical support for
writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no
facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
couldn't
be done?
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
_______________________________________________
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 
26 Jun
26 Jun
10:57 p.m.
Thanks simon for this documentation
Alexandre
On 24 Jun 2010, at 18:21, Simon Denier wrote:
Hi Ross
It's true that the metamodeling tools in Moose seem crude compared to what exist
elsewhere, but that's because we spend much more time using metamodels in new tools
than building metamodels :)
Here is the procedure when you need to define a completely new metamodel. You can still
make mistake when defining the metamodel but it eliminates most redundancy.
Once you have defined your metamodel, a set of lint rules can be run to check some
aspects of the metamodel (see below)
The essential pragma documentation is here (should be integrated in the book)
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/FameMetaDescriptions
Also, a good rule of thumb is to have MooseEntity as root instead of Object, it
facilitates integration with Moose tools.
1) Metamodel declaration
For the example below:
- Create class RPGDragon from a class browser
- add (class-side)
RPGDragon class>>annotation
<MSEClass: #Dragon super: #Object>
<package: #RPG>
Notice I just define the method with pragmas, I don't add any code in the body for
now.
For each attribute, I need to define the accessor (the getter, not the setter):
- define RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper><multivalued>
(same thing, method decl + pragma, no code)
No need to add the initialize, it will be defined by the generator.
2) To generate the implementation, do:
MooseModel generateClassesFrom: {RPGDragon. RPGHero. RPGWall} "collection of classes
defining the metamodel"
It should open a preview window, where you can see which method will be
defined/overridden by the generator. You can always tap Cmd-x to remove the selected
definition (in case you are doing some incremental metamodel definition).
You can repeat the generation step as much as you want, provided you understand it will
overwrite existing methods.
It works like a charm if you are doing your own metamodel. If you need to extend (as in
class extension, not the Java extend for inheritance) some existing Famix classes with new
attributes, you should be a bit more careful. Actually, when I need to extend an existing
metamodel with a few attributes, I just define the attributes directly in the Smalltalk
way (with pragmas AND method body). It's fast to do.
3) optionally, check that your metamodel is correct with lint rules (especially soundness
of opposite relationships): can be done from the meta browser...
On 16 juin 2010, at 22:36, Ross Boylan wrote:
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:14 +0200, Tudor Girba
wrote:
--
Simon
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev Hi Ross,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
Consider RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper>
<multivalued>
^hoard
^hoard is smalltalk code. You also have to create the instance
variable, define
hoard: aTreasure
hoard value: aTreasure
and
initialize
super initialize.
hoard := FMMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #keeper:.
killedBy := FMMultiMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #kills.
It's the redundancy, along with the possibilities for error that would
put the smalltalk and annotation out of sync, that concerns me (and that
I'm trying to avoid).
I do not in some other classes the names in the annotations and the
names of the methods and variables are not quite in sync, so maybe this
is a feature.
Ross
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba
wrote:
> As mentioned before, there is no support for graphical support for
> writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
> provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
> methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
couldn't
be done?
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :).
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
_______________________________________________
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 
7 Jun
7 Jun
9:40 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
There was some questions last week about extending the Famix metamodel. I just forward the
following guide I wrote last year. It should be formatted and put online too.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Date: 24 juin 2010 18:21:34 HAEC
To: Related to the development of Moose and other related tools
<moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Cc: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Re: Moose for SAS
Hi Ross
It's true that the metamodeling tools in Moose seem crude compared to what exist
elsewhere, but that's because we spend much more time using metamodels in new tools
than building metamodels :)
Here is the procedure when you need to define a completely new metamodel. You can still
make mistake when defining the metamodel but it eliminates most redundancy.
Once you have defined your metamodel, a set of lint rules can be run to check some
aspects of the metamodel (see below)
The essential pragma documentation is here (should be integrated in the book)
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/FameMetaDescriptions
Also, a good rule of thumb is to have MooseEntity as root instead of Object, it
facilitates integration with Moose tools.
1) Metamodel declaration
For the example below:
- Create class RPGDragon from a class browser
- add (class-side)
RPGDragon class>>annotation
<MSEClass: #Dragon super: #Object>
<package: #RPG>
Notice I just define the method with pragmas, I don't add any code in the body for
now.
For each attribute, I need to define the accessor (the getter, not the setter):
- define RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper><multivalued>
(same thing, method decl + pragma, no code)
No need to add the initialize, it will be defined by the generator.
2) To generate the implementation, do:
MooseModel generateClassesFrom: {RPGDragon. RPGHero. RPGWall} "collection of classes
defining the metamodel"
It should open a preview window, where you can see which method will be
defined/overridden by the generator. You can always tap Cmd-x to remove the selected
definition (in case you are doing some incremental metamodel definition).
You can repeat the generation step as much as you want, provided you understand it will
overwrite existing methods.
It works like a charm if you are doing your own metamodel. If you need to extend (as in
class extension, not the Java extend for inheritance) some existing Famix classes with new
attributes, you should be a bit more careful. Actually, when I need to extend an existing
metamodel with a few attributes, I just define the attributes directly in the Smalltalk
way (with pragmas AND method body). It's fast to do.
3) optionally, check that your metamodel is correct with lint rules (especially soundness
of opposite relationships): can be done from the meta browser...
On 16 juin 2010, at 22:36, Ross Boylan wrote:
--
Simon Denier
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:14 +0200, Tudor Girba
wrote:
--
Simon
Hi Ross,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
Consider RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper>
<multivalued>
^hoard
^hoard is smalltalk code. You also have to create the instance
variable, define
hoard: aTreasure
hoard value: aTreasure
and
initialize
super initialize.
hoard := FMMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #keeper:.
killedBy := FMMultiMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #kills.
It's the redundancy, along with the possibilities for error that would
put the smalltalk and annotation out of sync, that concerns me (and that
I'm trying to avoid).
I do not in some other classes the names in the annotations and the
names of the methods and variables are not quite in sync, so maybe this
is a feature.
Ross
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba
wrote:
> As mentioned before, there is no support for graphical support for
> writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
> provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
> methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
couldn't
be done?
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :).
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
_______________________________________________
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 
9:53 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
I was discussing with Usman yesterday about these emails to the list that are also
documentation artefacts.
It would be nice to have a mean to flag such emails (manually) so that they can form
collectively some documentation of Moose that would be easier to search in than the entire
mailing list archive.
nicolas
----- Mail original -----
De: "Simon Denier" <simon.denier(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mardi 7 Juin 2011 09:40:55
Objet: [Moose-dev] Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
There was some questions last week about extending the Famix metamodel. I just forward the
following guide I wrote last year. It should be formatted and put online too.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Simon Denier < Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr >
Date: 24 juin 2010 18:21:34 HAEC
To: Related to the development of Moose and other related tools <
moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >
Cc: Simon Denier < Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr >
Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Re: Moose for SAS
Hi Ross
It's true that the metamodeling tools in Moose seem crude compared to what exist
elsewhere, but that's because we spend much more time using metamodels in new tools
than building metamodels :)
Here is the procedure when you need to define a completely new metamodel. You can still
make mistake when defining the metamodel but it eliminates most redundancy.
Once you have defined your metamodel, a set of lint rules can be run to check some aspects
of the metamodel (see below)
The essential pragma documentation is here (should be integrated in the book)
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/FameMetaDescriptions
Also, a good rule of thumb is to have MooseEntity as root instead of Object, it
facilitates integration with Moose tools.
1) Metamodel declaration
For the example below:
- Create class RPGDragon from a class browser
- add (class-side)
RPGDragon class>>annotation
<MSEClass: #Dragon super: #Object>
<package: #RPG>
Notice I just define the method with pragmas, I don't add any code in the body for
now.
For each attribute, I need to define the accessor (the getter, not the setter):
- define RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper><multivalued>
(same thing, method decl + pragma, no code)
No need to add the initialize, it will be defined by the generator.
2) To generate the implementation, do:
MooseModel generateClassesFrom: {RPGDragon. RPGHero. RPGWall} "collection of classes
defining the metamodel"
It should open a preview window, where you can see which method will be defined/overridden
by the generator. You can always tap Cmd-x to remove the selected definition (in case you
are doing some incremental metamodel definition).
You can repeat the generation step as much as you want, provided you understand it will
overwrite existing methods.
It works like a charm if you are doing your own metamodel. If you need to extend (as in
class extension, not the Java extend for inheritance) some existing Famix classes with new
attributes, you should be a bit more careful. Actually, when I need to extend an existing
metamodel with a few attributes, I just define the attributes directly in the Smalltalk
way (with pragmas AND method body). It's fast to do.
3) optionally, check that your metamodel is correct with lint rules (especially soundness
of opposite relationships): can be done from the meta browser...
On 16 juin 2010, at 22:36, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:14 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Ross,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
As mentioned before, there is no support for graphical support for
writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
couldn't
be done?
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :).
Consider RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper>
<multivalued>
^hoard
^hoard is smalltalk code. You also have to create the instance
variable, define
hoard: aTreasure
hoard value: aTreasure
and
initialize
super initialize.
hoard := FMMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #keeper:.
killedBy := FMMultiMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #kills.
It's the redundancy, along with the possibilities for error that would
put the smalltalk and annotation out of sync, that concerns me (and that
I'm trying to avoid).
I do not in some other classes the names in the annotations and the
names of the methods and variables are not quite in sync, so maybe this
is a feature.
Ross
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
_______________________________________________
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
--
Simon
--
Simon Denier
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
11:20 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
On 7 juin 2011, at 09:53, Nicolas Anquetil wrote:
I was discussing with Usman yesterday about these
emails to the list that are also documentation artefacts.
It would be nice to have a mean to flag such emails (manually) so that they can form
collectively some documentation of Moose that would be easier to search in than the entire
mailing list archive.
I think the simplest solution would be to copy-paste the email on the website, with just a
bit of formatting. Is it ok?
nicolas
De: "Simon Denier" <simon.denier(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mardi 7 Juin 2011 09:40:55
Objet: [Moose-dev] Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
There was some questions last week about extending the Famix metamodel. I just forward
the following guide I wrote last year. It should be formatted and put online too.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Date: 24 juin 2010 18:21:34 HAEC
To: Related to the development of Moose and other related tools
<moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Cc: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Re: Moose for SAS
Hi Ross
It's true that the metamodeling tools in Moose seem crude compared to what exist
elsewhere, but that's because we spend much more time using metamodels in new tools
than building metamodels :)
Here is the procedure when you need to define a completely new metamodel. You can still
make mistake when defining the metamodel but it eliminates most redundancy.
Once you have defined your metamodel, a set of lint rules can be run to check some
aspects of the metamodel (see below)
The essential pragma documentation is here (should be integrated in the book)
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/FameMetaDescriptions
Also, a good rule of thumb is to have MooseEntity as root instead of Object, it
facilitates integration with Moose tools.
1) Metamodel declaration
For the example below:
- Create class RPGDragon from a class browser
- add (class-side)
RPGDragon class>>annotation
<MSEClass: #Dragon super: #Object>
<package: #RPG>
Notice I just define the method with pragmas, I don't add any code in the body for
now.
For each attribute, I need to define the accessor (the getter, not the setter):
- define RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper><multivalued>
(same thing, method decl + pragma, no code)
No need to add the initialize, it will be defined by the generator.
2) To generate the implementation, do:
MooseModel generateClassesFrom: {RPGDragon. RPGHero. RPGWall} "collection of classes
defining the metamodel"
It should open a preview window, where you can see which method will be
defined/overridden by the generator. You can always tap Cmd-x to remove the selected
definition (in case you are doing some incremental metamodel definition).
You can repeat the generation step as much as you want, provided you understand it will
overwrite existing methods.
It works like a charm if you are doing your own metamodel. If you need to extend (as in
class extension, not the Java extend for inheritance) some existing Famix classes with new
attributes, you should be a bit more careful. Actually, when I need to extend an existing
metamodel with a few attributes, I just define the attributes directly in the Smalltalk
way (with pragmas AND method body). It's fast to do.
3) optionally, check that your metamodel is correct with lint rules (especially soundness
of opposite relationships): can be done from the meta browser...
On 16 juin 2010, at 22:36, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:14 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Ross,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
As mentioned before, there is no support for graphical support for
writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
couldn't
be done?
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :).
Consider RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper>
<multivalued>
^hoard
^hoard is smalltalk code. You also have to create the instance
variable, define
hoard: aTreasure
hoard value: aTreasure
and
initialize
super initialize.
hoard := FMMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #keeper:.
killedBy := FMMultiMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #kills.
It's the redundancy, along with the possibilities for error that would
put the smalltalk and annotation out of sync, that concerns me (and that
I'm trying to avoid).
I do not in some other classes the names in the annotations and the
names of the methods and variables are not quite in sync, so maybe this
is a feature.
Ross
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
_______________________________________________
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
--
Simon
--
Simon Denier
_______________________________________________
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
--
Simon Denier
11:26 a.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
Yes :)
Doru
On 7 Jun 2011, at 11:20, Simon Denier wrote:
On 7 juin 2011, at 09:53, Nicolas Anquetil wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Problem solving efficiency grows with the abstractness level of problem
understanding."
I was discussing with Usman yesterday about these
emails to the list that are also documentation artefacts.
It would be nice to have a mean to flag such emails (manually) so that they can form
collectively some documentation of Moose that would be easier to search in than the entire
mailing list archive.
I think the simplest solution would be to copy-paste the email on the website, with just
a bit of formatting. Is it ok?
nicolas
De: "Simon Denier" <simon.denier(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mardi 7 Juin 2011 09:40:55
Objet: [Moose-dev] Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
There was some questions last week about extending the Famix metamodel. I just forward
the following guide I wrote last year. It should be formatted and put online too.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Date: 24 juin 2010 18:21:34 HAEC
To: Related to the development of Moose and other related tools
<moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Cc: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Re: Moose for SAS
Hi Ross
It's true that the metamodeling tools in Moose seem crude compared to what exist
elsewhere, but that's because we spend much more time using metamodels in new tools
than building metamodels :)
Here is the procedure when you need to define a completely new metamodel. You can still
make mistake when defining the metamodel but it eliminates most redundancy.
Once you have defined your metamodel, a set of lint rules can be run to check some
aspects of the metamodel (see below)
The essential pragma documentation is here (should be integrated in the book)
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/FameMetaDescriptions
Also, a good rule of thumb is to have MooseEntity as root instead of Object, it
facilitates integration with Moose tools.
1) Metamodel declaration
For the example below:
- Create class RPGDragon from a class browser
- add (class-side)
RPGDragon class>>annotation
<MSEClass: #Dragon super: #Object>
<package: #RPG>
Notice I just define the method with pragmas, I don't add any code in the body for
now.
For each attribute, I need to define the accessor (the getter, not the setter):
- define RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper><multivalued>
(same thing, method decl + pragma, no code)
No need to add the initialize, it will be defined by the generator.
2) To generate the implementation, do:
MooseModel generateClassesFrom: {RPGDragon. RPGHero. RPGWall} "collection of classes
defining the metamodel"
It should open a preview window, where you can see which method will be
defined/overridden by the generator. You can always tap Cmd-x to remove the selected
definition (in case you are doing some incremental metamodel definition).
You can repeat the generation step as much as you want, provided you understand it will
overwrite existing methods.
It works like a charm if you are doing your own metamodel. If you need to extend (as in
class extension, not the Java extend for inheritance) some existing Famix classes with new
attributes, you should be a bit more careful. Actually, when I need to extend an existing
metamodel with a few attributes, I just define the attributes directly in the Smalltalk
way (with pragmas AND method body). It's fast to do.
3) optionally, check that your metamodel is correct with lint rules (especially soundness
of opposite relationships): can be done from the meta browser...
On 16 juin 2010, at 22:36, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:14 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Ross,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
As mentioned before, there is no support for graphical support for
writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
couldn't
be done?
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :).
Consider RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper>
<multivalued>
^hoard
^hoard is smalltalk code. You also have to create the instance
variable, define
hoard: aTreasure
hoard value: aTreasure
and
initialize
super initialize.
hoard := FMMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #keeper:.
killedBy := FMMultiMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #kills.
It's the redundancy, along with the possibilities for error that would
put the smalltalk and annotation out of sync, that concerns me (and that
I'm trying to avoid).
I do not in some other classes the names in the annotations and the
names of the methods and variables are not quite in sync, so maybe this
is a feature.
Ross
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
_______________________________________________
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
--
Simon
--
Simon Denier
_______________________________________________
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
--
Simon Denier
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev 
4:18 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
+1 on that. Having selected e-mails as a reference/documentation on-line is much better
than having to search the mailing lists.
On 07 Jun 2011, at 05:26, Tudor Girba wrote:
Yes :)
Doru
On 7 Jun 2011, at 11:20, Simon Denier wrote:
--
Johan Fabry
jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
On 7 juin 2011, at 09:53, Nicolas Anquetil wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Problem solving efficiency grows with the abstractness level of problem
understanding."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev I was discussing with Usman yesterday about these
emails to the list that are also documentation artefacts.
It would be nice to have a mean to flag such emails (manually) so that they can form
collectively some documentation of Moose that would be easier to search in than the entire
mailing list archive.
I think the simplest solution would be to copy-paste the email on the website, with just
a bit of formatting. Is it ok?
nicolas
De: "Simon Denier" <simon.denier(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mardi 7 Juin 2011 09:40:55
Objet: [Moose-dev] Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
There was some questions last week about extending the Famix metamodel. I just forward
the following guide I wrote last year. It should be formatted and put online too.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Date: 24 juin 2010 18:21:34 HAEC
To: Related to the development of Moose and other related tools
<moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Cc: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Re: Moose for SAS
Hi Ross
It's true that the metamodeling tools in Moose seem crude compared to what exist
elsewhere, but that's because we spend much more time using metamodels in new tools
than building metamodels :)
Here is the procedure when you need to define a completely new metamodel. You can still
make mistake when defining the metamodel but it eliminates most redundancy.
Once you have defined your metamodel, a set of lint rules can be run to check some
aspects of the metamodel (see below)
The essential pragma documentation is here (should be integrated in the book)
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/FameMetaDescriptions
Also, a good rule of thumb is to have MooseEntity as root instead of Object, it
facilitates integration with Moose tools.
1) Metamodel declaration
For the example below:
- Create class RPGDragon from a class browser
- add (class-side)
RPGDragon class>>annotation
<MSEClass: #Dragon super: #Object>
<package: #RPG>
Notice I just define the method with pragmas, I don't add any code in the body for
now.
For each attribute, I need to define the accessor (the getter, not the setter):
- define RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper><multivalued>
(same thing, method decl + pragma, no code)
No need to add the initialize, it will be defined by the generator.
2) To generate the implementation, do:
MooseModel generateClassesFrom: {RPGDragon. RPGHero. RPGWall} "collection of classes
defining the metamodel"
It should open a preview window, where you can see which method will be
defined/overridden by the generator. You can always tap Cmd-x to remove the selected
definition (in case you are doing some incremental metamodel definition).
You can repeat the generation step as much as you want, provided you understand it will
overwrite existing methods.
It works like a charm if you are doing your own metamodel. If you need to extend (as in
class extension, not the Java extend for inheritance) some existing Famix classes with new
attributes, you should be a bit more careful. Actually, when I need to extend an existing
metamodel with a few attributes, I just define the attributes directly in the Smalltalk
way (with pragmas AND method body). It's fast to do.
3) optionally, check that your metamodel is correct with lint rules (especially soundness
of opposite relationships): can be done from the meta browser...
On 16 juin 2010, at 22:36, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:14 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Ross,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
As mentioned before, there is no support for graphical support for
writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
couldn't
be done?
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :).
Consider RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper>
<multivalued>
^hoard
^hoard is smalltalk code. You also have to create the instance
variable, define
hoard: aTreasure
hoard value: aTreasure
and
initialize
super initialize.
hoard := FMMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #keeper:.
killedBy := FMMultiMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #kills.
It's the redundancy, along with the possibilities for error that would
put the smalltalk and annotation out of sync, that concerns me (and that
I'm trying to avoid).
I do not in some other classes the names in the annotations and the
names of the methods and variables are not quite in sync, so maybe this
is a feature.
Ross
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
_______________________________________________
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
--
Simon
--
Simon Denier
_______________________________________________
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
--
Simon Denier
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
10 Jun
10 Jun
6:30 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
I posted a first version here, which is possibly incomplete
http://www.moosetechnology.org/docs/famix/extendingFamix
It should also include
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/FameMetaDescriptions
- how to reset the metamodel
- how to run lint rules
- what are the lint rules for metamodel
On 7 juin 2011, at 16:18, Johan Fabry wrote:
+1 on that. Having selected e-mails as a reference/documentation on-line is much better
than having to search the mailing lists.
On 07 Jun 2011, at 05:26, Tudor Girba wrote:
--
Simon Denier
Yes :)
Doru
On 7 Jun 2011, at 11:20, Simon Denier wrote:
--
Johan Fabry
jfabry(a)dcc.uchile.cl - http://dcc.uchile.cl/~jfabry
PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
On 7 juin 2011, at 09:53, Nicolas Anquetil wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Problem solving efficiency grows with the abstractness level of problem
understanding."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev I was discussing with Usman yesterday about these
emails to the list that are also documentation artefacts.
It would be nice to have a mean to flag such emails (manually) so that they can form
collectively some documentation of Moose that would be easier to search in than the entire
mailing list archive.
I think the simplest solution would be to copy-paste the email on the website, with just
a bit of formatting. Is it ok?
nicolas
De: "Simon Denier" <simon.denier(a)gmail.com>
À: "Moose-related development" <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Envoyé: Mardi 7 Juin 2011 09:40:55
Objet: [Moose-dev] Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
There was some questions last week about extending the Famix metamodel. I just forward
the following guide I wrote last year. It should be formatted and put online too.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Date: 24 juin 2010 18:21:34 HAEC
To: Related to the development of Moose and other related tools
<moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
Cc: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Re: Moose for SAS
Hi Ross
It's true that the metamodeling tools in Moose seem crude compared to what exist
elsewhere, but that's because we spend much more time using metamodels in new tools
than building metamodels :)
Here is the procedure when you need to define a completely new metamodel. You can still
make mistake when defining the metamodel but it eliminates most redundancy.
Once you have defined your metamodel, a set of lint rules can be run to check some
aspects of the metamodel (see below)
The essential pragma documentation is here (should be integrated in the book)
http://code.google.com/p/moose-technology/wiki/FameMetaDescriptions
Also, a good rule of thumb is to have MooseEntity as root instead of Object, it
facilitates integration with Moose tools.
1) Metamodel declaration
For the example below:
- Create class RPGDragon from a class browser
- add (class-side)
RPGDragon class>>annotation
<MSEClass: #Dragon super: #Object>
<package: #RPG>
Notice I just define the method with pragmas, I don't add any code in the body for
now.
For each attribute, I need to define the accessor (the getter, not the setter):
- define RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper><multivalued>
(same thing, method decl + pragma, no code)
No need to add the initialize, it will be defined by the generator.
2) To generate the implementation, do:
MooseModel generateClassesFrom: {RPGDragon. RPGHero. RPGWall} "collection of classes
defining the metamodel"
It should open a preview window, where you can see which method will be
defined/overridden by the generator. You can always tap Cmd-x to remove the selected
definition (in case you are doing some incremental metamodel definition).
You can repeat the generation step as much as you want, provided you understand it will
overwrite existing methods.
It works like a charm if you are doing your own metamodel. If you need to extend (as in
class extension, not the Java extend for inheritance) some existing Famix classes with new
attributes, you should be a bit more careful. Actually, when I need to extend an existing
metamodel with a few attributes, I just define the attributes directly in the Smalltalk
way (with pragmas AND method body). It's fast to do.
3) optionally, check that your metamodel is correct with lint rules (especially soundness
of opposite relationships): can be done from the meta browser...
On 16 juin 2010, at 22:36, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 22:14 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
Hi Ross,
On 16 Jun 2010, at 21:17, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 09:37 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
As mentioned before, there is no support for graphical support for
writing MSE files. The main reason here is that Smalltalk already
provides a good enough solution for quickly building classes and
methods, and annotating them is a practical solution.
I gather there is no facility to generate the smalltalk out of the
method annotations. Is there any reason, in principle, that it
couldn't
be done?
Well, if you have the method annotations, you already have the
Smalltalk code :).
Consider RPGDragon>>hoard
<MSEProperty: #hoard type: #RPGTreasure opposite: #keeper>
<multivalued>
^hoard
^hoard is smalltalk code. You also have to create the instance
variable, define
hoard: aTreasure
hoard value: aTreasure
and
initialize
super initialize.
hoard := FMMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #keeper:.
killedBy := FMMultiMultivalueLink on: self opposite: #kills.
It's the redundancy, along with the possibilities for error that would
put the smalltalk and annotation out of sync, that concerns me (and that
I'm trying to avoid).
I do not in some other classes the names in the annotations and the
names of the methods and variables are not quite in sync, so maybe this
is a feature.
Ross
Right now, the only possibility is to generate Smalltalk code out of
MSE code that represents your meta-model. This is like the famixCore
string that you saw in the image.
Cheers,
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot
be done."
_______________________________________________
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
--
Simon
--
Simon Denier
_______________________________________________
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
--
Simon Denier
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
7 Jun
7 Jun
7:48 p.m.
New subject: Fwd: Re: Moose for SAS
Just to update people on my SAS work: I got caught in a maze of twisty
passages with the SAS preprocessor and macro language, and solved my
immediate SAS needs by hand.
One alternative would be to parse a SAS log instead of the SAS code,
where the log is generated with SAS options like mprint to print the
results of macro expansion (and some other options I don't recall for
printing code from included files). This would replace the relatively
tricky task of getting the SAS preprocessor right with the more
straightforward one of extracting the expanded code from the log file.
However, it would require old code to be rerun, which might be a
problem.
Replicating the behavior of the SAS preprocessor is not an all or
nothing activity; there are various tricky cases that are relatively
unlikely to arise.
Ross
On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 09:40 +0200, Simon Denier wrote:
There was some questions last week about extending the Famix
metamodel. I just forward the following guide I wrote last year. It
should be formatted and put online too.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Simon Denier <Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
> Date: 24 juin 2010 18:21:34 HAEC
> To: Related to the development of Moose
and other related tools
> <moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch>
> Cc: Simon Denier
<Simon.Denier(a)inria.fr>
> Subject: Re: [Moose-dev] Re: Moose for
SAS
> Hi Ross
> It's true that the metamodeling tools in Moose seem crude compared
> to what exist elsewhere, but that's because we spend much more time
> using metamodels in new tools than building metamodels :)
......
16 Jun
16 Jun
2:46 a.m.
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:27 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 02:17 +0200, Tudor Girba wrote:
Whoops: I think I meant model or meta-model.
I do not know SAS, but you should check to see if the concepts
present
in FAMIX are of use to you. If yes, you can directly instantiate
them
from your parser. If not, then you will want to code a new
meta-model,
or extend the current ones to accommodate your needs. You can then
describe this new meta-model using FM3 (this is achieved via
Smalltalk
pragmas) and you get a browser and import-export in the MSE format
for
free.
Once you have your Smalltalk objects as instances of the meta-model,
you can then use Mondrian and Glamour for building visual tools, or
the MooseAlgos to express graph-specific algorithms.
Does this help?
Well, I was hoping that I would need to specify the meta-model or
the
meta-meta-model, but not both. That is, I was hoping the tools could
build one out of the other. It sounds as if you're telling me I need to
do both.
I hope I'm misunderstanding :)
Also, is there a guide to what the pragmas are?
I meant the FM3 pragmas.
Ross
4703
days inactive
5063
days old
18 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Johan Fabry -
Nicolas Anquetil -
Ross Boylan -
Simon Denier -
Simon Denier -
Tudor Girba -
Tudor Girba