| Error in 17.5.7 Classifier [message #477215] |
Wed, 09 April 2008 07:19  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hey again...
The best proof of the template mechanism's complexity is the amount of errors I find in the specs.. Here's another one:
Section 17.5.7 Classifier, p. 627, under Associations:
"templateParameter : ParameterableElement [0..1]
The template parameter that exposes this element as a formal
parameter. Redefines ParameterableElement::templateParameter"
The type of "templateParameter" must be
"ClassifierTemplateParameter", not "ParameterableElement".
As always, before submitting an Issue, I'd like to have some other people's interpretations.
Thanks,
Felix
|
|
|
| Re: Error in 17.5.7 Classifier [message #477225 is a reply to message #477215] |
Wed, 09 April 2008 11:37  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Felix,
Yes I think you are right again...
Classifier is a ParameterableElement and it redefines templateParameter.
The type of the redefined templateParameter should be
ClassifierTemplateParameter.
In the current implementation, we allow for users to call
setTemplateParameter(TemplateParameter ) but then throw an exception if it
not of type ClassifierTemplateParameter. This should be addressed in the
spec. so we can update our API.
Cheers,
- James.
"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fti8nr$bfq$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hey again...
>
> The best proof of the template mechanism's complexity is the amount of
> errors I find in the specs.. Here's another one:
>
> Section 17.5.7 Classifier, p. 627, under Associations:
>
> "templateParameter : ParameterableElement [0..1]
> The template parameter that exposes this element as a formal
> parameter. Redefines ParameterableElement::templateParameter"
>
> The type of "templateParameter" must be
> "ClassifierTemplateParameter", not "ParameterableElement".
>
>
> As always, before submitting an Issue, I'd like to have some other
> people's interpretations.
>
> Thanks,
> Felix
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Error in 17.5.7 Classifier [message #477227 is a reply to message #477226] |
Wed, 09 April 2008 13:50 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Felix,
You should not feel shy about entering concerns at OMG. At least there will
be a record of the issues. It's really the only way that problems will be
addressed. I would suggest also proposing a resolution if you really want
your issue to be addressed. As long as you don't enter a church in your
underwear I don't see a problem.
- James.
"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:ftiogf$u8q$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Poor guy wrote:
>> As always, before submitting an Issue, I'd like to have some other
>> people's interpretations.
>
> Btw, In a thread above I read about your concerns of the current OMG Issue
> Reporting "System". I'd
> also strongly advocate for a modernization. The current state really keeps
> me
> from submitting comments myself, I'd feel like entering a church in shorts
> (I have nothing against
> people who go to church..)
>
> Why not a Bugzilla as you guys proposed before? This would really lower
> the hurdles.
>
> Felix
|
|
|
| Re: Error in 17.5.7 Classifier [message #626383 is a reply to message #477215] |
Wed, 09 April 2008 11:37 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Felix,
Yes I think you are right again...
Classifier is a ParameterableElement and it redefines templateParameter.
The type of the redefined templateParameter should be
ClassifierTemplateParameter.
In the current implementation, we allow for users to call
setTemplateParameter(TemplateParameter ) but then throw an exception if it
not of type ClassifierTemplateParameter. This should be addressed in the
spec. so we can update our API.
Cheers,
- James.
"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fti8nr$bfq$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hey again...
>
> The best proof of the template mechanism's complexity is the amount of
> errors I find in the specs.. Here's another one:
>
> Section 17.5.7 Classifier, p. 627, under Associations:
>
> "templateParameter : ParameterableElement [0..1]
> The template parameter that exposes this element as a formal
> parameter. Redefines ParameterableElement::templateParameter"
>
> The type of "templateParameter" must be
> "ClassifierTemplateParameter", not "ParameterableElement".
>
>
> As always, before submitting an Issue, I'd like to have some other
> people's interpretations.
>
> Thanks,
> Felix
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Error in 17.5.7 Classifier [message #626384 is a reply to message #477215] |
Wed, 09 April 2008 11:48 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Poor guy wrote:
> As always, before submitting an Issue, I'd like to have some other
> people's interpretations.
Btw, In a thread above I read about your concerns of the current OMG Issue Reporting "System". I'd
also strongly advocate for a modernization. The current state really keeps me
from submitting comments myself, I'd feel like entering a church in shorts (I have nothing against
people who go to church..)
Why not a Bugzilla as you guys proposed before? This would really lower the hurdles.
Felix
|
|
|
| Re: Error in 17.5.7 Classifier [message #626385 is a reply to message #477226] |
Wed, 09 April 2008 13:50 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Felix,
You should not feel shy about entering concerns at OMG. At least there will
be a record of the issues. It's really the only way that problems will be
addressed. I would suggest also proposing a resolution if you really want
your issue to be addressed. As long as you don't enter a church in your
underwear I don't see a problem.
- James.
"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:ftiogf$u8q$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Poor guy wrote:
>> As always, before submitting an Issue, I'd like to have some other
>> people's interpretations.
>
> Btw, In a thread above I read about your concerns of the current OMG Issue
> Reporting "System". I'd
> also strongly advocate for a modernization. The current state really keeps
> me
> from submitting comments myself, I'd feel like entering a church in shorts
> (I have nothing against
> people who go to church..)
>
> Why not a Bugzilla as you guys proposed before? This would really lower
> the hurdles.
>
> Felix
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.28096 seconds
Home