Hi Guillermo, On Sep 16, 2013, at 9:44 AM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey!
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM, roberto.minelli@usi.ch <roberto.minelli@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.
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