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
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