30 May
2012
30 May
'12
6:50 p.m.
Hi guys. Right now, our extension to export Moose models does the
following:
accepts: anObject
MooseModel meta
descriptionOf: anObject class
ifAbsent: [ ^ false ].
^ true
so....if an object is NOT found in the #descriptionOf: then we use the
normal Fuel serialization. If it WAS found, then we do something like:
FLFameCluster >> referencesOf: anObject do: aBlock
self attributes
do: [ :anAttribute |
| values |
values := anAttribute getFrom: anObject.
(self shouldIgnore: anAttribute withAll: values)
ifTrue: [ aBlock value: 0 ]
ifFalse: [
aBlock value: values size.
values do: [ :aValue | aBlock value: aValue ] ] ]
and
shouldIgnore: attribute withAll: values
"Copied from FMRepositoryVisitor>>ignoreProperty:withAll:"
^ values isEmpty or: [
attribute isDerived or: [
attribute type == FM3MetaDescription boolean and: [
values size == 1 and: [
values first == false ]]]]
so...basically we follow all attributes.
Now...my question is (actually, Martin), instead of doing the "if" to see
whether I should do that or the normal fuel procedure, instead of being
MooseModel meta descriptionOf: anObject class ifAbsent:
can be: "object kindOf: MooseEntity" ?
would that be the same? in other words, all what is included in
descriptionOf: are MooseEntities? all MooseEntities (whether they are
included in descriptionOf: or not should be ne serialized that way?
I ask because it would make the code much easier.
thanks
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
30 May
30 May
11:20 p.m.
New subject: One more question about fame/famix entities and fuel exporter
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck <
marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi guys. Right now, our extension to export Moose
models does the
following:
accepts: anObject
MooseModel meta
descriptionOf: anObject class
ifAbsent: [ ^ false ].
^ true
so....if an object is NOT found in the #descriptionOf: then we use the
normal Fuel serialization. If it WAS found, then we do something like:
FLFameCluster >> referencesOf: anObject do: aBlock
self attributes
do: [ :anAttribute |
| values |
values := anAttribute getFrom: anObject.
(self shouldIgnore: anAttribute withAll: values)
ifTrue: [ aBlock value: 0 ]
ifFalse: [
aBlock value: values size.
values do: [ :aValue | aBlock value: aValue ] ] ]
and
shouldIgnore: attribute withAll: values
"Copied from FMRepositoryVisitor>>ignoreProperty:withAll:"
^ values isEmpty or: [
attribute isDerived or: [
attribute type == FM3MetaDescription boolean and: [
values size == 1 and: [
values first == false ]]]]
so...basically we follow all attributes.
Now...my question is (actually, Martin), instead of doing the "if" to see
whether I should do that or the normal fuel procedure, instead of being
MooseModel meta descriptionOf: anObject class ifAbsent:
can be: "object kindOf: MooseEntity" ?
would that be the same? in other words, all what is included in
descriptionOf: are MooseEntities? all MooseEntities (whether they are
included in descriptionOf: or not should be ne serialized that way?
Well I noticed that all objects found in descriptionOf: are MooseEntities.
So this is cool. The only missing part is that if ALL MooseEntities should
be serialized with this special way (our extension) intead of the normal
one, or only those which are present in MooseModel descriptionOf ...
so do you know?
In either case, we can simplify our extension quite a lot.
I ask because it would make the code much easier.
thanks
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
31 May
31 May
9:10 a.m.
New subject: One more question about fame/famix entities and fuel exporter
Hi Mariano,
The current FuelMooseExtensions is in fact a FuelFameExtension. Fame
is at a higher level than MooseEntity, and it can be used to describe
any object (just like Magritte). To serialize objects based on the
Fame descriptions, you have to go through those descriptions. So, the
current implementation is quite valuable as it is.
Your observation is correct for FAMIX models (but remember that Moose
is more than that): all the relevant objects inherit from MooseEntity.
But, if we go to the Smalltalk level, we can use a much simpler
heuristic: We serialize everything that is referenced by the
MooseModel object :). However, this strategy should be separate from
the existing one, because that one is valuable the way it is.
Cheers,
Doru
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck
<marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck
<marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
Hi guys. Right now, our extension to export Moose models does the
following:
accepts: anObject
MooseModel meta
descriptionOf: anObject class
ifAbsent: [ ^ false ].
^ true
so....if an object is NOT found in the #descriptionOf: then we use the
normal Fuel serialization. If it WAS found, then we do something like:
FLFameCluster >> referencesOf: anObject do: aBlock
self attributes
do: [ :anAttribute |
| values |
values := anAttribute getFrom: anObject.
(self shouldIgnore: anAttribute withAll: values)
ifTrue: [ aBlock value: 0 ]
ifFalse: [
aBlock value: values size.
values do: [ :aValue | aBlock value: aValue ] ] ]
and
shouldIgnore: attribute withAll: values
"Copied from FMRepositoryVisitor>>ignoreProperty:withAll:"
^ values isEmpty or: [
attribute isDerived or: [
attribute type == FM3MetaDescription boolean and: [
values size == 1 and: [
values first == false ]]]]
so...basically we follow all attributes.
Now...my question is (actually, Martin), instead of doing the "if" to see
whether I should do that or the normal fuel procedure, instead of being
MooseModel meta descriptionOf: anObject class ifAbsent:
can be: "object kindOf: MooseEntity" ?
would that be the same? in other words, all what is included in
descriptionOf: are MooseEntities? all MooseEntities (whether they are
included in descriptionOf: or not should be ne serialized that way?
Well I noticed that all objects found in descriptionOf: are MooseEntities.
So this is cool. The only missing part is that if ALL MooseEntities should
be serialized with this special way (our extension) intead of the normal
one, or only those which are present in MooseModel descriptionOf ...
so do you know?
In either case, we can simplify our extension quite a lot.
I ask because it would make the code much easier.
thanks
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
10:14 a.m.
New subject: One more question about fame/famix entities and fuel exporter
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi Mariano,
The current FuelMooseExtensions is in fact a FuelFameExtension.
Actually, we have two packages, FuelMooseExtensions and FuelFameExtension.
Fame
is at a higher level than MooseEntity, and it can be used to describe
any object (just like Magritte). To serialize objects based on the
Fame descriptions, you have to go through those descriptions. So, the
current implementation is quite valuable as it is.
Your observation is correct for FAMIX models (but remember that Moose
is more than that): all the relevant objects inherit from MooseEntity.
But, if we go to the Smalltalk level, we can use a much simpler
heuristic: We serialize everything that is referenced by the
MooseModel object :). However, this strategy should be separate from
the existing one, because that one is valuable the way it is.
But wait. One the one hand, we have the FLFameCluster that knows how to
serialize objects based on Fame descriptions, following the attributes,
etc. That is in FuelFameExtensions. Now, what I want to change is
FuelMooseExtension, to change the "if" to see when to use the
FLFameCluster. And that is what could be simplified a lot. Just saying that
*only for Moose* all MooseEntities should use FLFameCluster simplifies
things a lot. I am not changing the FuelFameExtension at all. Just saying
when Moose should use it. Instead of checking each object of the graph in
the MooseModel meta descriptionOf: I just know that if it is a
MooseEntity, it should use the Fame description. But still, the Fame
extension is there if later there is another users.
does it make sense?
Cheers,
Doru
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck
<marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
MooseEntities.
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck
<marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi guys. Right now, our extension to export Moose models does the
> following:
>
> accepts: anObject
> MooseModel meta
> descriptionOf: anObject class
> ifAbsent: [ ^ false ].
> ^ true
>
> so....if an object is NOT found in the #descriptionOf: then we use the
> normal Fuel serialization. If it WAS found, then we do something like:
>
> FLFameCluster >> referencesOf: anObject do: aBlock
>
> self attributes
> do: [ :anAttribute |
> | values |
> values := anAttribute getFrom: anObject.
> (self shouldIgnore: anAttribute withAll: values)
> ifTrue: [ aBlock value: 0 ]
> ifFalse: [
> aBlock value: values size.
> values do: [ :aValue | aBlock value: aValue ] ] ]
>
> and
>
> shouldIgnore: attribute withAll: values
> "Copied from FMRepositoryVisitor>>ignoreProperty:withAll:"
>
> ^ values isEmpty or: [
> attribute isDerived or: [
> attribute type == FM3MetaDescription boolean and: [
> values size == 1 and: [
> values first == false ]]]]
>
> so...basically we follow all attributes.
>
> Now...my question is (actually, Martin), instead of doing the "if" to
see
whether I
should do that or the normal fuel procedure, instead of being
MooseModel meta descriptionOf: anObject class ifAbsent:
can be: "object kindOf: MooseEntity" ?
would that be the same? in other words, all what is included in
descriptionOf: are MooseEntities? all MooseEntities (whether they are
included in descriptionOf: or not should be ne serialized that way?
Well I noticed that all objects found in descriptionOf: are So this is cool. The only missing part is that if
ALL MooseEntities
should
be serialized with this special way (our
extension) intead of the normal
one, or only those which are present in MooseModel descriptionOf ...
so do you know?
In either case, we can simplify our extension quite a lot.
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
I ask because it would make the code much easier.
thanks
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
--
Mariano
http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
4351
days inactive
4352
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Tudor Girba