On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:20 PM, François Tanguy wrote:
Would it be a good idea to have a bridge between the two ?
I do not know what is your scenario?
Like generating magritte descriptions from the Fame pragmas.
do you have an example? because you mean describing Magritte in fame?
Then we could imagine to have a generic editor for a metamodel and serialization... (like in EMF)
fame already support the functionality of EMF. I think that Fame should stay a simple metametamodel.
I wrote a very basic piece of code that does the transformation from Fame to Magritte in some very specific use case and that is something that is definitely possible.
What do you think ?
I do not know. what is your need?
Stef
Le 25 sept. 2010 à 11:49, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
here is my summary fame is a minimal meta meta model ( 4 or 5 classes): we use it describe other model (such as Famix) based on fame you can load and save model.
Magritte is a meta data driven framework. you describe specific entity and the tools interpret it.
On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:24 AM, François Tanguy wrote:
Hi,
being a end user, I am bit confused with these 2 frameworks: Fame and Magritte. There are both meta-meta-models. So what make them different from a conceptual point of view ?
For my models, I would like to have the persistency for free (from Fame) and the UI edition and model validation for free (from Magritte).
Today I must write two times the description of my language (one in Fame and one in Magritte), and it feels like I would need only one description.
Any info on this would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Francois
Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Hi,
Such a bridge is useful when you want to use the tools built on top of the other meta-meta-model. For example, in Metanool I started to work on an editor for the Fame descriptions. To do this, we have a translator of Fame objects into Magritte objects (hacked with Lukas on some train ride). The code is available at:
"Metanool" Gofer new squeaksource: 'Metanool'; package: 'Metanool'; load.
The most interesting method is: FM3MetaDescription>>asMagritteDescription
Cheers, Doru
On 25 Sep 2010, at 21:50, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:20 PM, François Tanguy wrote:
Would it be a good idea to have a bridge between the two ?
I do not know what is your scenario?
Like generating magritte descriptions from the Fame pragmas.
do you have an example? because you mean describing Magritte in fame?
Then we could imagine to have a generic editor for a metamodel and serialization... (like in EMF)
fame already support the functionality of EMF. I think that Fame should stay a simple metametamodel.
I wrote a very basic piece of code that does the transformation from Fame to Magritte in some very specific use case and that is something that is definitely possible.
What do you think ?
I do not know. what is your need?
Stef
Le 25 sept. 2010 à 11:49, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
here is my summary fame is a minimal meta meta model ( 4 or 5 classes): we use it describe other model (such as Famix) based on fame you can load and save model.
Magritte is a meta data driven framework. you describe specific entity and the tools interpret it.
On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:24 AM, François Tanguy wrote:
Hi,
being a end user, I am bit confused with these 2 frameworks: Fame and Magritte. There are both meta-meta-models. So what make them different from a conceptual point of view ?
For my models, I would like to have the persistency for free (from Fame) and the UI edition and model validation for free (from Magritte).
Today I must write two times the description of my language (one in Fame and one in Magritte), and it feels like I would need only one description.
Any info on this would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Francois
Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@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."
Doru, you got my point. Thanks for the link, I will have a close look at it.
Le 25 sept. 2010 à 22:18, Tudor Girba a écrit :
Hi,
Such a bridge is useful when you want to use the tools built on top of the other meta-meta-model. For example, in Metanool I started to work on an editor for the Fame descriptions. To do this, we have a translator of Fame objects into Magritte objects (hacked with Lukas on some train ride). The code is available at:
"Metanool" Gofer new squeaksource: 'Metanool'; package: 'Metanool'; load.
The most interesting method is: FM3MetaDescription>>asMagritteDescription
Cheers, Doru
On 25 Sep 2010, at 21:50, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:20 PM, François Tanguy wrote:
Would it be a good idea to have a bridge between the two ?
I do not know what is your scenario?
Like generating magritte descriptions from the Fame pragmas.
do you have an example? because you mean describing Magritte in fame?
Then we could imagine to have a generic editor for a metamodel and serialization... (like in EMF)
fame already support the functionality of EMF. I think that Fame should stay a simple metametamodel.
I wrote a very basic piece of code that does the transformation from Fame to Magritte in some very specific use case and that is something that is definitely possible.
What do you think ?
I do not know. what is your need?
Stef
Le 25 sept. 2010 à 11:49, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
here is my summary fame is a minimal meta meta model ( 4 or 5 classes): we use it describe other model (such as Famix) based on fame you can load and save model.
Magritte is a meta data driven framework. you describe specific entity and the tools interpret it.
On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:24 AM, François Tanguy wrote:
Hi,
being a end user, I am bit confused with these 2 frameworks: Fame and Magritte. There are both meta-meta-models. So what make them different from a conceptual point of view ?
For my models, I would like to have the persistency for free (from Fame) and the UI edition and model validation for free (from Magritte).
Today I must write two times the description of my language (one in Fame and one in Magritte), and it feels like I would need only one description.
Any info on this would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Francois
Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@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."
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Le 25 sept. 2010 à 21:50, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:20 PM, François Tanguy wrote:
Would it be a good idea to have a bridge between the two ?
I do not know what is your scenario?
I would like to edit models in the web browser with seaside components generated with Magritte and save the models using Fame.
Like generating magritte descriptions from the Fame pragmas.
do you have an example? because you mean describing Magritte in fame?
I am just wondering why I must use two languages to describe a metamodel with constraints. If I want to express a language structure I must use Fame (to have package, classes, properties). If I want to add constraints I must use Magritte. But when I define Magritte descriptions, I feel like I rewrite the same stuff I did in Fame (except for the validation part).
Then we could imagine to have a generic editor for a metamodel and serialization... (like in EMF)
fame already support the functionality of EMF. I think that Fame should stay a simple metametamodel.
Yes, but it is still missing editing tools compared to EMF, or am I wrong ?
I wrote a very basic piece of code that does the transformation from Fame to Magritte in some very specific use case and that is something that is definitely possible.
What do you think ?
I do not know. what is your need?
I want to describe a language only one time and be able to use tools from Fame and Magritte. So with a minimal amount of work, I get serialization, edition, validation, code generation.
Stef
Le 25 sept. 2010 à 11:49, Stéphane Ducasse a écrit :
here is my summary fame is a minimal meta meta model ( 4 or 5 classes): we use it describe other model (such as Famix) based on fame you can load and save model.
Magritte is a meta data driven framework. you describe specific entity and the tools interpret it.
On Sep 25, 2010, at 11:24 AM, François Tanguy wrote:
Hi,
being a end user, I am bit confused with these 2 frameworks: Fame and Magritte. There are both meta-meta-models. So what make them different from a conceptual point of view ?
For my models, I would like to have the persistency for free (from Fame) and the UI edition and model validation for free (from Magritte).
Today I must write two times the description of my language (one in Fame and one in Magritte), and it feels like I would need only one description.
Any info on this would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Francois
Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
-
François Tanguy -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Tudor Girba