[Moose-dev] Re: About a model of changes on top of famix
hani.abdeen at univ-savoie.fr
Thu Jul 17 15:06:28 MEST 2008
Actually I do the solution B but I do not use any thing for changes
history (for the moment I do not need the changes history).
Doru, When you say that the default behavior for Hismo is Solution A
you wont to say that in hismo we can do something like this:
and the result is a new model identical to aMooseModel but without
any pointer to any entity into aMooseModel?
On 28 juin 08, at 07:52, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> indeed I do not really know.
> I think that we will go for version B in our case
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 11:54 PM, Tudor Girba wrote:
>> I would suggest to use Hismo :).
>> The default behavior for Hismo is Solution A, because typically we
>> have the versions and we need to extract histories. That is why we
>> have duplicated models.
>> But, for example in the case of YellowSubmarine - the SVN client, we
>> do not duplicate that information. The trick there was to not use the
>> default EntityVersion which requires a corresponding entity for each
>> version. Instead, he subclassed AbstractVersion to just hold the diff
>> and then recompute the content of the entity.
>> However, you also have to consider what the end goal is. If you want
>> to perform computations on each version, you might end up needing
>> complete models. In this case, it probably is easier to just go for
>> Solution A.
>> On Jun 27, 2008, at 6:57 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>>> let us imagine that we would like to see what would happen if we
>>> a class A from package P1 to P2, without changing the source code
>>> may be been able to undo the change
>>> Solution A:
>>> We could copy the complete model, modify it. (and keep somewhere an
>>> Solution B:
>>> We could change the model and keep an history of the changes
>>> (move A
>>> P1 P2).
>>> Solution C: I could cache in each model a timestamp similar to what
>>> frederic pluquet did
>>> and know at which version modification we are. then for a given
>>> changes I could get the model by getting entity at the same level or
>>> Any thoughts on that.
>>> I have the impression that solution B is easier.
>>> Moose-dev mailing list
>>> Moose-dev at iam.unibe.ch
>> "Obvious things are difficult to teach."
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> Moose-dev at iam.unibe.ch
> Moose-dev mailing list
> Moose-dev at iam.unibe.ch
More information about the Moose-dev