Hi again
What if the clone is meant to be the root of an extent? Then it does not participate in any containment.
Therefore, I think we do need to attach a clone to an extent. Again, I find the current Eclipse QVTo solution very practical,
which reuses the inference rules for mappings that do not specify an explicit extent.
Regards
Christopher
Von: qvto-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:qvto-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Ed Willink
Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Februar 2014 18:54
An: QVTOML developer mailing list
Betreff: Re: [qvto-dev] model extents for clone/deepClone
Hi
I see no point in a cloned object automatically belonging to any extent. The clone should become part of a Resource as soon as ity participates in a containment relationship.
The clone can be explicitly extented using an ObjectExp.
If the user neglects to provide an extent tough it's lost. If QVTo is kind, it could issue a warning, and possibly even put it in yet another Resource, or the trace model.
Regards
Ed
On 04/02/2014 17:12, Adolfo Sánchez-Barbudo Herrera wrote:
To be honest I´m not up to date with your/EclipseQVTo clone/deepClone discussions, but the specification should clearly state what happens when cloning objects. I only see a couple of alternatives:
1) They don´t belong to any modelExtent.
2) They belong to the same modelExtent of the cloned object.
3) They can explicitly belong to a model extent, for instance with some library operations:
a) Element::clone/deepClone(Model extent) : Element
b) Model::clone/deepCloneElement(Element element): Element
_______________________________________________
qvto-dev mailing list
qvto-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/qvto-dev
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3684/7058 - Release Date: 02/03/14
