Hi Guillermo, On Sep 16, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Guillermo Polito <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey! > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM, [email protected] > <[email protected]> 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. Exactly the problem I run into. > 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? Any suggestion on this, Guillermo? > > Thanks in advance, > Roberto >
