Re: [incquery-dev] IPatternMatch refactoring

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

Re: [incquery-dev] IPatternMatch refactoring

From: Ábel Hegedüs <abel.hegedus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:48:54 +0200
Delivered-to: incquery-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/incquery-dev>
List-help: <mailto:incquery-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incquery-dev>, <mailto:incquery-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/options/incquery-dev>, <mailto:incquery-dev-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hello,

Can't we hide away all these behind a facade called EventSource{Specification|Instance|...} or something, so that we do not need multiple RuleSpecification and RuleInstance classes?

We can, we should, we will. Can you elaborate on your idea?

However, the main question is: should we introduce ITuple as a generalization of IPatternMatch or remove incquery.api related classes from EVM?

Cheers,

Ábel

References:
- [incquery-dev] IPatternMatch refactoring
  - From: Dávid István
- Re: [incquery-dev] IPatternMatch refactoring
  - From: bergmann
- Re: [incquery-dev] IPatternMatch refactoring
  - From: Ábel Hegedüs
- Re: [incquery-dev] IPatternMatch refactoring
  - From: bergmann

Prev by Date: Re: [incquery-dev] engine life-cycle listener
Next by Date: Re: [incquery-dev] IPatternMatch refactoring
Previous by thread: Re: [incquery-dev] IPatternMatch refactoring
Next by thread: Re: [incquery-dev] IPatternMatch refactoring
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Breadcrumbs