[Moose-dev] Re: famix renamings
stephane.ducasse at univ-savoie.fr
Thu Jun 28 17:16:18 MEST 2007
On 28 juin 07, at 11:52, Martin Pinzger wrote:
> Here is our FAMIX core model for representing Java source code.
> There are some differences in naming that can be easily fixed, such
> as we use "parent" instead of "belongsTo". The other main difference
> concerns modifiers of entities. We use an integer to represent the
> scope, static, abstract, etc. modifier of classes, methods, and
> attributes instead of having extra attributes.
Indeed this would be an idea. Do you have a way to say that a value
For example I want to say that a method is a getter but I could also
want to say that it is
not known that it is a getter that is different from it is not a getter.
> Furthermore, we added
> an abstract "Conext" class to indicate container entities (i.e.,
> entities that can contain other famix entities).
> Feel free to use and comment.
> On Jun 28, 2007, at 12:48 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>> At FAMOOSr you mentioned that you performed renamings on FAMIX?
>> Could you summarize them?
>> The current names of the elements can be found in the UML diagram:
>> "Every thing should have the right to be different."
> Dr. Martin Pinzger
> University of Zurich, Department of Informatics
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev at iam.unibe.ch
More information about the Moose-dev