[Uml-devel] more insanity

[Luis De la Parra Blum]

> hmm... to specific. we wouldn't be able to parse XMI files with UML
> elements in them. actually, take what you have there, change the
> MOF::Package to a Ref::RefObject, and the set* methods to refSetValue("*",
> false) and you have the reflective version. basically.
>
and who is going to walk the Ref::RefObject tree and do the "new 
MOF::Package()" ?
I mean, with the reflective objects we are basically building the metaclasses 
for the MOF or UML metamodels, but at the end we have to have "real" objects 
and not just descriptions of them (which are what the reflective objects are, 
as I understand things)

>
> here's my idea... lets start with libReflective. we'll model it after JMI
> (http://java.sun.com/products/jmi/) because they have a somewhat cleaner

ok, I guess I'll have to take a look at JMI


>
> then, we start going in 2 directions: libXMI for generic parsing and libMOF
> - the real one. we'll build it by hand according to the template mappings

ahhhh!!, I think I finally got you... so libXMI reads XMI and creates a bunch 
of "Ref::Object", then handles those to libMOF, which queries them and 
creates MOF::Objects ??

>
> actually, some parts of libXMI can probably be developed in paralell with
> libReflective

just to make sure... libXMI reads XMI, forms a DOM tree (or we use SAX, but I 
would rather go for the DOM) and then creates a bunch of reflective objects. 
right?
libReflective would be just a bunch of... well... more or less "dumb" classes 
with just some attribues wich we can set/get, right? (no real functionality 
of its own)

luis