[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [viatra-dev] Transformation API
|
I am not sure if I understood correctly your idea, but I guess the API design for the commands were motivated by an entirely other case: supporting model manipulations both with and without a (Transactional)EditingDomain. For this reason, a simple set of commands were defined (create, set, add and remove) that can be implemented multiple ways.
The "convenience methods" were motivated by the fact that the defined API is not too easy to write, as we have to manage _both_ the Java model implementation and the metamodel, as the types are not exactly the same.
About packaging operations, because of the dual implementation requirement, I do not believe normal Xtend model manipulation operations would be sufficient, but is clearly possible to group our model manipulation commands into more complex operations by defining extra methods; however, I do not see a large number of higher-level, _generic_ operations missing (of course I am open to see some of them, and they are easy to add). On the other hand, I believe, such chaining is very useful for metamodel-specific implementations (and are of course possible).
If I misunderstood your idea, I would like some clarification.
Zoli
-- Zoltán Ujhelyi
https://www.inf.mit.bme.hu/en/members/ujhelyiz
Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
Budapest University of Technology and Economics
On 2013.09.29., at 22:00, Istvan Rath <rath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OK, I think I get it now.
>
> The other idea I had in mind was to provide an API shorthand for "packaging" several simple (pure Xtend) manipulation operations into a single "command". AFAIK this is the main reason why we want to create "convenience methods" in the first place right? What if we turn the whole thing on its head?
>
> --
> Istvan RATH, PhD
> Research fellow
> Budapest University of Technology and Economics
> Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
>
>
>
> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Ujhelyi Zoltán wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the state_Name is the EMF Reflective API literal (Xtend shorthand for *Package.getState_Name() ), while basic is the Object we are setting, so the code is not bogus (at least not in an easily understandable way).
>>
>> However, this code is not the easiest thing to write manually (at least it was not for me), that's why an alternative like Gábor suggested would be nice (but sadly, I believe is not feasible for single-value features).
>>
>> Zoli
>> -- Zoltán Ujhelyi
>> https://www.inf.mit.bme.hu/en/members/ujhelyiz
>>
>> Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
>> Budapest University of Technology and Economics
>>
>> On 2013.09.29., at 21:49, Istvan Rath <rath@xxxxxxxxxx (mailto:rath@xxxxxxxxxx)> wrote:
>>
>>> So the line
>>>
>>> basic.set(state_Name, p.name (http://p.name))///name = p.name (http://p.name)
>>>
>>> from http://wiki.eclipse.org/VIATRA2/EMF/Transformation_API#Defining_rules.2C_rulegroups is bogus?
>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't we require to use the EMF reflective API in this case? I.e. by passing the appropriate literal from the EPackage?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Istvan RATH, PhD
>>> Research fellow
>>> Budapest University of Technology and Economics
>>> Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, September 29, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Ujhelyi Zoltán wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem is that I cannot find any implementation behind the interface, that works, as the method.name (http://method.name) would return a string without any metainformation, e.g. the corresponding EStructuralFeature. Without knowing the feature (even by knowing the defining object and the Java type) it is not possible to change to original reference.
>>>>
>>>> This issue does not appear in case of lists, as EMF always returns modifiable lists.
>>>>
>>>> Zoli
>>>> -- Zoltán Ujhelyi
>>>> https://www.inf.mit.bme.hu/en/members/ujhelyiz
>>>>
>>>> Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
>>>> Budapest University of Technology and Economics
>>>>
>>>> On 2013.09.29., at 21:36, Istvan Rath <rath@xxxxxxxxxx (mailto:rath@xxxxxxxxxx)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gábor suggested to have convenience methods that handle ELists findable from the EMF API, e.g.:
>>>>>> * method.add(method.parameters, newParameter)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This approach works well for multi-valued references (even better than my EMF-reflective implementation), however, for single-value references or attribute I see no way of implementing an API like this, e.g.:
>>>>>> * method.set(method.name (http://method.name), "main")
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with this? I don't think it looks awkward.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Istvan RATH, PhD
>>>>> Research fellow
>>>>> Budapest University of Technology and Economics
>>>>> Fault Tolerant Systems Research Group
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> viatra-dev mailing list
>>>>> viatra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:viatra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/viatra-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> viatra-dev mailing list
>>>> viatra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:viatra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/viatra-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> viatra-dev mailing list
>>> viatra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:viatra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/viatra-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> viatra-dev mailing list
>> viatra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:viatra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/viatra-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> viatra-dev mailing list
> viatra-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/viatra-dev
