Hey! On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM, roberto.mine...@usi.ch < roberto.mine...@usi.ch> wrote:
> Hi, > > I was at ESUG last week and I discussed about this issue with some people, > and in the end Stef told me "drop a mail in the mailing list, I am > interested to understand what all the other people think about it". So, > here I am. > > I have my project in which I am modeling development sessions. Each > session object has a number of meta-data (e.g., start, end time, etc.) and > a collection of events. Each event object owns some meta-data and some > references to classes that were "touched" by a given event (i.e., now I am > using the Ring definition of the classes, since I plan to serialize and > deserialize them and I cannot serialize the real class object, it would be > too heavy, isn't it?). > Serializing a class is not a big deal ;). With fuel you can even serialize execution contexts, blocks and stuff. But (but but), I can tell your decision is still good because during development you can end up removing a class, and when that happens the system makes it obsolete and remove all its data. So if you were pointing to the real class, you would have problems to access the class data afterwards. And since you use ring, you're ok ;). Cheers, Guille > > Now the question: I would like to create a Moose model of a development > session to be able to import the sessions in the Moose panel and play > around with the excellent Moose tool-suite. How should I proceed? Do you > think it's better to annotate and add pragmas to the existing classes or to > create a minimal parallel hierarchy of my model (i.e., MooseSession for > MySession) and have something like MySession>>#asMooseDef which returns an > object of kind MooseSession? > > Thanks in advance, > Roberto >
