Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 07:35, Stephen McConnell wrote:
meta-info (description of a component type) meta-data (descriptions of deployment scenarios)
Is it only me, or isn't these too definitions too confusing??? I also think that it restricts future meta definitions to a large degree.
May I suggest a term shift;
meta-info -> Component Type Meta meta-data -> Deployment Scenario Meta
You can try!
It will make it a lot easier for new people, and people like me (memory=640kB, frequent NMIs), to read descriptions.
I understand the "confusing" concern. I must confess that many years ago I was dragged kicking and screaming into this arena and yes - when you really get into scenarios ivolving multiple meta abstractions - things do get interesting and belive it or not - the complexity adds clarity. Today our meta-model does not have a meta-meta-model. If we do have a meta-meta-model - the notions of meta versus instance would be easier to understand. My guess is that we will end up in meta-meta here in Avalon within the next couple of years. When we make the jump it will be painful but once you make the jump it like riding a bike.
I.e. stock-up on Asprin!
;-)
In the meantime .... consider the following dimensions:
META-INFO META-DATA ------------------------------------- class instance
type criteria (particular context requirements,
dependency types,...)profile scenario (a particular context solution,
configuration, and assembly)Now that wasn't so hard!
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
