parentSelectors

> On Sep 18, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Anne Etien <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Are you talking about MSEParentSelector: pragma? As in:
> annotation
> <MSEClass: #Type super: #FAMIXContainerEntity>
> <package: #FAMIX>
> <MSEParentSelector: #container >
> <MSEParentSelector: #parentPackage >
> ^self
>
> I made such modifications one year ago almost (if my modifications are the last ones) after discussions on the mailing list and announcing it.
> This is use for MooseQuery. And will be certainly used in the next version of FamixDiff. The idea was to have a meta description to know which type is containing the studied type.
> If you prefer to do it on the instance side and not in the class side in the annotation method, no problem. I don’t see in which way, the actual version is not extensible. If you prefer to call it MSEParentProperty and not MSEParentSelector, no problem neither.
> In my image that is based on Moose6.0 (of last Friday), I don’t have FAMIXType>>parentSelectors.
> But perhaps we are not talking about the same thing.
>
> Cheers,
> Anne
>
>> Le 18 sept. 2016 à 11:09, Tudor Girba <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just saw that the way the parent selectors are being defined was changed. In general, please announce deep changes like these on the mailing list.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, the goal was to make it easier for extensions to specify the parentSelectors. This is a good goal, but there are two problems with the current solution:
>>
>> 1. The parentSelectors should be extensible. Right now, they are defined in one method returning a collection of strings. Instead, it would be better to have them described directly in the selector method. For example, we could have:
>>
>> FAMIXType>>container
>> <MSEProperty: #container type: #FAMIXContainerEntity opposite: #types>
>> <MSEComment: 'Container entity to which this type belongs to. Container is a namespace, not a package (Smalltalk).'>
>> <MSEParentProperty>
>> ^container
>>
>> This would also allow us to extend existing classes with annotations that can be selectors.
>>
>>
>> 2. Right now, the parentSelectors are defined on the instance side as an MSE property:
>>
>> FAMIXType>>parentSelectors
>> <MSEProperty: #parentSelectors type: #String>
>> <multivalued>
>> ^ #(container parentPackage)
>>
>> This is incorrect given that they describe the type, not the instance. For example, one consequence is that now we serialize this information (check MooseModel>>testExport which fails right now). Instead, let’s go for solution from point 1.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>> www.feenk.com
>>
>> "It's not how it is, it is how we see it."
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev

> On Sep 18, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Vincent BLONDEAU <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>  
> From: Moose-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tudor Girba
> Sent: dimanche 18 septembre 2016 11:09
> To: Moose-related development
> Subject: [Moose-dev] parentSelectors
>  
> Hi,
>  
> Hi,
>  
>  
> I just saw that the way the parent selectors are being defined was changed. In general, please announce deep changes like these on the mailing list.
>  
> Indeed, I done it last week and didn’t announced it yet on the mailing list.
>  
> If I understand correctly, the goal was to make it easier for extensions to specify the parentSelectors. This is a good goal, but there are two problems with the current solution:
>  
> Yes, there was some problems if you extend the FAMIX metamodel with some classes, as it is done with Orion. The parentSelectors are in fact not described in the fame metamodel and cannot be used easily in the subclasses.
>  
> 1. The parentSelectors should be extensible. Right now, they are defined in one method returning a collection of strings. Instead, it would be better to have them described directly in the selector method. For example, we could have:
>  
> FAMIXType>>container
>             <MSEProperty: #container type: #FAMIXContainerEntity opposite: #types>
>             <MSEComment: 'Container entity to which this type belongs to. Container is a namespace, not a package (Smalltalk).'>
>             <MSEParentProperty>
>             ^container
>  
> This would also allow us to extend existing classes with annotations that can be selectors.
>  
> 2. Right now, the parentSelectors are defined on the instance side as an MSE property:
>  
> FAMIXType>>parentSelectors
>             <MSEProperty: #parentSelectors type: #String>
>             <multivalued>
>             ^ #(container parentPackage)
>  
> This is incorrect given that they describe the type, not the instance. For example, one consequence is that now we serialize this information (check MooseModel>>testExport which fails right now). Instead, let’s go for solution from point 1.
>  
> What do you think?
>  
> I agree that this property is a type property. But, in fame we cannot define such kind of property. To do it, we can:
> -          Don’t use the Fame meta model (previous solution)
> -          Use the instance meta descriptions that are already defined meta model (current solution bu not the best)
> -          Define some new properties in the metamodel, as you propose. But in the 2 points suggested, we have to change the MSE importer and the metamodel to take into account the new pragmas (in “annotation” or in the selectors by MSEParentProperty).
> Do you think that is a good idea ?
>         If, we do that, I think the solution in point 1 is better.
>  
> For the current failing test, we can add <derived>. This way the information will not be serialized

> Cheers,
> Vincent
>  
>  
> Cheers,
> Doru
>  
>  
>  
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "It's not how it is, it is how we see it."
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev

> On Sep 18, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Vincent BLONDEAU <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Moose-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tudor Girba
> Sent: dimanche 18 septembre 2016 11:09
> To: Moose-related development
> Subject: [Moose-dev] parentSelectors
>
> Hi,
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I just saw that the way the parent selectors are being defined was changed. In general, please announce deep changes like these on the mailing list.
>
> Indeed, I done it last week and didn’t announced it yet on the mailing list.
>
> If I understand correctly, the goal was to make it easier for extensions to specify the parentSelectors. This is a good goal, but there are two problems with the current solution:
>
> Yes, there was some problems if you extend the FAMIX metamodel with some classes, as it is done with Orion. The parentSelectors are in fact not described in the fame metamodel and cannot be used easily in the subclasses.
>
> 1. The parentSelectors should be extensible. Right now, they are defined in one method returning a collection of strings. Instead, it would be better to have them described directly in the selector method. For example, we could have:
>
> FAMIXType>>container
>             <MSEProperty: #container type: #FAMIXContainerEntity opposite: #types>
>             <MSEComment: 'Container entity to which this type belongs to. Container is a namespace, not a package (Smalltalk).'>
>             <MSEParentProperty>
>             ^container
>
> This would also allow us to extend existing classes with annotations that can be selectors.
>
> 2. Right now, the parentSelectors are defined on the instance side as an MSE property:
>
> FAMIXType>>parentSelectors
>             <MSEProperty: #parentSelectors type: #String>
>             <multivalued>
>             ^ #(container parentPackage)
>
> This is incorrect given that they describe the type, not the instance. For example, one consequence is that now we serialize this information (check MooseModel>>testExport which fails right now). Instead, let’s go for solution from point 1.
>
> What do you think?
>
> I agree that this property is a type property. But, in fame we cannot define such kind of property. To do it, we can:
> -          Don’t use the Fame meta model (previous solution)
> -          Use the instance meta descriptions that are already defined meta model (current solution bu not the best)
> -          Define some new properties in the metamodel, as you propose. But in the 2 points suggested, we have to change the MSE importer and the metamodel to take into account the new pragmas (in “annotation” or in the selectors by MSEParentProperty).
> Do you think that is a good idea ?
>         If, we do that, I think the solution in point 1 is better.
>
> For the current failing test, we can add <derived>. This way the information will not be serialized

> Cheers,
> Vincent
>
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "It's not how it is, it is how we see it."
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev

> On Sep 18, 2016, at 3:29 PM, Blondeau Vincent <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> ________________________________________
> De : Moose-dev [[hidden email]] de la part de Tudor Girba [[hidden email]]
> Date d'envoi : dimanche 18 septembre 2016 15:17
> À : Moose-related development
> Objet : [Moose-dev] Re: parentSelectors
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Sep 18, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Vincent BLONDEAU <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Moose-dev [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Tudor Girba
>> Sent: dimanche 18 septembre 2016 11:09
>> To: Moose-related development
>> Subject: [Moose-dev] parentSelectors
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I just saw that the way the parent selectors are being defined was changed. In general, please announce deep changes like these on the mailing list.
>>
>> Indeed, I done it last week and didn’t announced it yet on the mailing list.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, the goal was to make it easier for extensions to specify the parentSelectors. This is a good goal, but there are two problems with the current solution:
>>
>> Yes, there was some problems if you extend the FAMIX metamodel with some classes, as it is done with Orion. The parentSelectors are in fact not described in the fame metamodel and cannot be used easily in the subclasses.
>>
>> 1. The parentSelectors should be extensible. Right now, they are defined in one method returning a collection of strings. Instead, it would be better to have them described directly in the selector method. For example, we could have:
>>
>> FAMIXType>>container
>>            <MSEProperty: #container type: #FAMIXContainerEntity opposite: #types>
>>            <MSEComment: 'Container entity to which this type belongs to. Container is a namespace, not a package (Smalltalk).'>
>>            <MSEParentProperty>
>>            ^container
>>
>> This would also allow us to extend existing classes with annotations that can be selectors.
>>
>> 2. Right now, the parentSelectors are defined on the instance side as an MSE property:
>>
>> FAMIXType>>parentSelectors
>>            <MSEProperty: #parentSelectors type: #String>
>>            <multivalued>
>>            ^ #(container parentPackage)
>>
>> This is incorrect given that they describe the type, not the instance. For example, one consequence is that now we serialize this information (check MooseModel>>testExport which fails right now). Instead, let’s go for solution from point 1.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> I agree that this property is a type property. But, in fame we cannot define such kind of property. To do it, we can:
>> -          Don’t use the Fame meta model (previous solution)
>> -          Use the instance meta descriptions that are already defined meta model (current solution bu not the best)
>> -          Define some new properties in the metamodel, as you propose. But in the 2 points suggested, we have to change the MSE importer and the metamodel to take into account the new pragmas (in “annotation” or in the selectors by MSEParentProperty).
>> Do you think that is a good idea ?
>>        If, we do that, I think the solution in point 1 is better.
>>
>> For the current failing test, we can add <derived>. This way the information will not be serialized
>
> The MSE property is about an instance. So, marking it with <derived> does not work because we are mixing levels of abstractions.
>
> <I know it is just temporary.
>
> What we want is to make the selector discoverable through reflection. This is at the level of Pharo code. So, by annotating the concrete property we can discover them properly and have subclasses know about them.
>
>
> <So you don't think that is should be described in the meta model? and just use the Pharo reflexion to retrieve the methods?

> Cheers,
> Vincent
>
>
> Cheers,
> Doru
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Vincent
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> www.tudorgirba.com
>> www.feenk.com
>>
>> "It's not how it is, it is how we see it."
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
> www.feenk.com
>
> "Obvious things are difficult to teach."
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> !!!*************************************************************************************
> "Ce message et les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et réservés à l'usage exclusif de ses destinataires. Il peut également être protégé par le secret professionnel. Si vous recevez ce message par erreur, merci d'en avertir immédiatement l'expéditeur et de le détruire. L'intégrité du message ne pouvant être assurée sur Internet, la responsabilité de Worldline ne pourra être recherchée quant au contenu de ce message. Bien que les meilleurs efforts soient faits pour maintenir cette transmission exempte de tout virus, l'expéditeur ne donne aucune garantie à cet égard et sa responsabilité ne saurait être recherchée pour tout dommage résultant d'un virus transmis.
>
> This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it. As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Worldline liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network, the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted.!!!"
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev