Home » Archived » M2M (model-to-model transformation) » [QVTO] Mappings with non-model type context
| [QVTO] Mappings with non-model type context [message #662617] |
Thu, 31 March 2011 10:03  |
 Tassilo Horn
Messages: 93
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi all,
I've just found out that QVTo supports using OCL types as the context of
mappings, like:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
transformation Nix2Genealogy(out dst:Persons);
main() {
Set{1,2,3} -> map int2Genealogy();
Set{Set{"foo", "bar"},
Set{"foo", "foo"},
Set{"bar", "bar", "baz"},
Set{"foo"},
Set{"bar", "foo"}} -> map set2Male();
}
mapping Integer::int2Genealogy() : Persons::Genealogy {}
mapping Set(String)::set2Male() : Persons::Male {}
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I think it's a nice feature. But is that conforming to the QVT spec?
Since that defines mappings in terms of relations, I somehow don't see
how that should match. For example, the second mapping operation above
would correspond to a relation:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
relation REL_set2Male {
checkonly domain:??? (self:Set(String))[]
enforce domain:dst (result:Persons::Male)[]
}
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
But I don't grasp the meaning of that relation. How can a relation hold
between a value (integer, set, whatsoever) and a model element?
Aside from the spec, I have another question. If I extend the example
above to this
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
// add this to main():
// Set{1,2,3} -> map int2Female();
mapping Set(String)::set2Male() : Persons::Male {
// That does work
wife := 1.late resolveone(Female);
}
mapping Integer::int2Female() : Persons::Female {
// That does NOT work
// husband := Set{"foo", "foo"}.resolveone(Male);
}
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
why does the late resolve on 1 work indeed, but the other way round,
resolving a Male from a set for which a Male was created, does not work?
Bye,
Tassilo
--
Dipl.-Inform. Tassilo Horn | Room: B015
University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Koblenz | Phone: +49 (261) 287-2745
Institute for Software Technology | Mail: horn@uni-koblenz.de
Universitätsstr. 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany |
|
|
|
| Re: [QVTO] Mappings with non-model type context [message #663443 is a reply to message #662617] |
Tue, 05 April 2011 06:55  |
Ed Willink
Messages: 7655
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Tassilo
Since no one else is answering, I'll try.
I find the use of 'relations' in the QVTo spec very unhelpful; more of
an aspiration towards QVT commonality than a practice. The examples I've
looked at just make no sense at all.
So I think kooking for a consistency with relations is inappropriate.
"map" is a useful functionality between well-defined model types and
that is what you've discovered.
I've found it very difficult to get useful results from "resolve" so I
tend to maintain my own mapping Dict. So I'm afraid that I can't suggest
whether you problem is with your understanding, the QVTo implementation
or the QVTo specification.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 31/03/2011 11:03, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've just found out that QVTo supports using OCL types as the context of
> mappings, like:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> transformation Nix2Genealogy(out dst:Persons);
> main() {
> Set{1,2,3} -> map int2Genealogy();
> Set{Set{"foo", "bar"},
> Set{"foo", "foo"},
> Set{"bar", "bar", "baz"},
> Set{"foo"},
> Set{"bar", "foo"}} -> map set2Male();
> }
>
> mapping Integer::int2Genealogy() : Persons::Genealogy {}
> mapping Set(String)::set2Male() : Persons::Male {}
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> I think it's a nice feature. But is that conforming to the QVT spec?
> Since that defines mappings in terms of relations, I somehow don't see
> how that should match. For example, the second mapping operation above
> would correspond to a relation:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> relation REL_set2Male {
> checkonly domain:??? (self:Set(String))[]
> enforce domain:dst (result:Persons::Male)[]
> }
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> But I don't grasp the meaning of that relation. How can a relation hold
> between a value (integer, set, whatsoever) and a model element?
>
> Aside from the spec, I have another question. If I extend the example
> above to this
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> // add this to main():
> // Set{1,2,3} -> map int2Female();
>
> mapping Set(String)::set2Male() : Persons::Male {
> // That does work
> wife := 1.late resolveone(Female);
> }
> mapping Integer::int2Female() : Persons::Female {
> // That does NOT work
> // husband := Set{"foo", "foo"}.resolveone(Male);
> }
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> why does the late resolve on 1 work indeed, but the other way round,
> resolving a Male from a set for which a Male was created, does not work?
>
> Bye,
> Tassilo
|
|
|
| Re: [QVTO] Mappings with non-model type context [message #663516 is a reply to message #663443] |
Tue, 05 April 2011 13:03 |
Tassilo Horn
Messages: 93
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Ed Willink <ed@willink.me.uk> writes:
Hi Ed,
> I find the use of 'relations' in the QVTo spec very unhelpful; more of
> an aspiration towards QVT commonality than a practice. The examples
> I've looked at just make no sense at all.
Yes, I have the same impression. But if they had been consequent, they
would have specified QVTo with Relations, Relations with Core, and Core
with QVTo, in order to get a nice, mutually recursive specification.
;-)
> So I think kooking for a consistency with relations is inappropriate.
Agreed.
> "map" is a useful functionality between well-defined model types and
> that is what you've discovered.
Yeah, but then, why is Integer well-defined, but Set(String) is not?
> I've found it very difficult to get useful results from "resolve" so I
> tend to maintain my own mapping Dict.
Really? IMO, automatic source <-> target mappings with resolving
functionality is one of the most important concepts of model
transformations. I mean, if I have to maintain those myself, I could
stick to plain Java (or whatsoever) and Map<Object, Object>.
> So I'm afraid that I can't suggest whether you problem is with your
> understanding, the QVTo implementation or the QVTo specification.
Ok, thanks anyway.
What I am really looking for is a statement from a QVTo dev, like
a) It's not really backed by the spec. That it works for Integers is
a coincidence you should not rely on.
b) It's not really backed by the spec, but we think it's useful. The
failing resolution for Sets is a bug.
c) ...
Bye,
Tassilo
> On 31/03/2011 11:03, Tassilo Horn wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've just found out that QVTo supports using OCL types as the context of
>> mappings, like:
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> transformation Nix2Genealogy(out dst:Persons);
>> main() {
>> Set{1,2,3} -> map int2Genealogy();
>> Set{Set{"foo", "bar"},
>> Set{"foo", "foo"},
>> Set{"bar", "bar", "baz"},
>> Set{"foo"},
>> Set{"bar", "foo"}} -> map set2Male();
>> }
>>
>> mapping Integer::int2Genealogy() : Persons::Genealogy {}
>> mapping Set(String)::set2Male() : Persons::Male {}
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> I think it's a nice feature. But is that conforming to the QVT spec?
>> Since that defines mappings in terms of relations, I somehow don't see
>> how that should match. For example, the second mapping operation above
>> would correspond to a relation:
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> relation REL_set2Male {
>> checkonly domain:??? (self:Set(String))[]
>> enforce domain:dst (result:Persons::Male)[]
>> }
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> But I don't grasp the meaning of that relation. How can a relation hold
>> between a value (integer, set, whatsoever) and a model element?
>>
>> Aside from the spec, I have another question. If I extend the example
>> above to this
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> // add this to main():
>> // Set{1,2,3} -> map int2Female();
>>
>> mapping Set(String)::set2Male() : Persons::Male {
>> // That does work
>> wife := 1.late resolveone(Female);
>> }
>> mapping Integer::int2Female() : Persons::Female {
>> // That does NOT work
>> // husband := Set{"foo", "foo"}.resolveone(Male);
>> }
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> why does the late resolve on 1 work indeed, but the other way round,
>> resolving a Male from a set for which a Male was created, does not work?
>>
>> Bye,
>> Tassilo
>
--
Dipl.-Inform. Tassilo Horn | Room: B015
University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Koblenz | Phone: +49 (261) 287-2745
Institute for Software Technology | Mail: horn@uni-koblenz.de
Universitätsstr. 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 26 23:35:14 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03466 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
