[Better comment initiative] AnnotationType

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Better comment initiative] AnnotationType

Usman Bhatti
FamixAnnotationType and FamixAnnotationInstance are defined in Famix.Core, so in theory they should be independent of any language. Here is the comment from AnnotationIstance

AnnotationInstance is an instance of an AnnotationType. It links an AnnotationType to an actual entity.
For example, the following is an AnnotationInstance in Java:
@Test(Timeout = 500)

This model fits java but not smalltalk pragmas. So is it ok to keep in Famix core?

thanx

Nicolas and Usman

_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Better comment initiative] AnnotationType

Tudor Girba-2
This model fits both Smalltalk pragmas and Java annotations and thus
these entities should be in the core. Now the Smalltalk importer
actually populates these entities and it works just fine.

The comment states that it talks about an example. We can add one for
Smalltalk as well.

Cheers,
Doru

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Usman Bhatti <[hidden email]> wrote:

> FamixAnnotationType and FamixAnnotationInstance are defined in Famix.Core,
> so in theory they should be independent of any language. Here is the comment
> from AnnotationIstance
> AnnotationInstance is an instance of an AnnotationType. It links an
> AnnotationType to an actual entity.
> For example, the following is an AnnotationInstance in Java:
> @Test(Timeout = 500)
> This model fits java but not smalltalk pragmas. So is it ok to keep in Famix
> core?
> thanx
> Nicolas and Usman
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
>



--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Every thing has its own flow"
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Better comment initiative] AnnotationType

Stéphane Ducasse
I love to see these discussions.
I really want FAMIX30 to be really well documented because we should build a couple of language importers in the future.

On Nov 22, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:

> This model fits both Smalltalk pragmas and Java annotations and thus
> these entities should be in the core. Now the Smalltalk importer
> actually populates these entities and it works just fine.
>
> The comment states that it talks about an example. We can add one for
> Smalltalk as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Usman Bhatti <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> FamixAnnotationType and FamixAnnotationInstance are defined in Famix.Core,
>> so in theory they should be independent of any language. Here is the comment
>> from AnnotationIstance
>> AnnotationInstance is an instance of an AnnotationType. It links an
>> AnnotationType to an actual entity.
>> For example, the following is an AnnotationInstance in Java:
>> @Test(Timeout = 500)
>> This model fits java but not smalltalk pragmas. So is it ok to keep in Famix
>> core?
>> thanx
>> Nicolas and Usman
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> "Every thing has its own flow"
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev


_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev