[gme-users] GME tutorial question: a paradigm for routers that
have a fixed set of ports?
akos.ledeczi at vanderbilt.edu
Wed Aug 16 13:53:52 CDT 2006
if you compare a dsml to a programming language such as C++ what you are
asking for is that users are not allowed to create their own classes
only instantiate classes that are provided to them. GME out of the box
does not allow that restriction just like a C++ environment won't
constrain you that way.
What you can do now is what Ace suggested: use libraries and tell the
users that they have to use the provided building blocks. (You can
possibly write some contraints that checks this, but it might end up
being a hack.) We are reimplementing the library feature right now,
because it was limited and buggy. Hopefully, we'll have a release late
Interestingly, we have just started to think about an extension to GME
using patterns. It will be a generalization of the clipboard idea.
Basically you can create a palette of patterns (model fragments) that
you can apply directly (i.e. copy as it is) or if it is parameterized,
"instantiate". This is in the conceptual stage right now, so do not
expect something until later in the Fall.
(I just got Sandeep's email where he calls this macros...)
John K Black wrote:
> Hi Ace and Zoltan,
> Thank you both for your thoughtful responses.
> As Ace mentioned in his response, I am interested in
> creating a domain specific modeling language that lets
> users model *with* routers -- not a DSML for or
> *creating* routers themselves.
> I have tried using MetaGME to model specific routers,
> but so far my attempts to do have been only partially
> successful. For example, I can create a "Yoyodyne 9000"
> router that shows up in the GME Parts Browser. When it
> is dragged onto a diagram you can double-click it and the
> Parts Browser shows exactly the fixed set of ports that
> are associated with the Yoyodyne 9000. Unfortunately,
> this approach still requires that the model drag the ports
> from the Parts Browser into the router. That's not how
> I'd like my DSML to behave. I don't know if this is a GME
> limitation, or if it's just because I have a messed
> up metamodel.
> I've experimented with Zoltan's ideas, and they work fine.
> However, the copy/pasting approach is a little awkward.
> The idea of having a separate UI that can manipulate
> the model by automating the cut and paste or by letting
> users pick pre-configured model elements from a palette
> is interesting. Could GME's scripting capabilities would
> be of any use in automating the insertion of preconfigured
> model elements?
> In the end, I'm looking for a way to cleanly separate the
> various levels of abstraction, so modelers only see the
> abstractions(s) they need to see. At the lowest level
> there is MetaGME. Layered on top of it would be a DSML for
> constructing routers. Layered on top of that is a DSML
> for modeling *with* routers. (I've left out other details
> like connections, etc., but I hope the idea is clear.)
> Of course if I build a separate UI as Zoltan suggested,
> and tell the modelers to use my UI and not to use the
> GME Parts Browser, then I suppose I could sort of achieve
> the effect that I'm looking for.
> BTW, I'm not *really* interested in modeling routers,
> especially the "Yoyodyne 9000" ;^) I'm just sticking with an
> example that lots of GME users are probably familiar with.
> -----"Ace Thompson" <acethompson at igniteweb.net> wrote: -----
>>To: "'John K Black'" <John_K_Black at raytheon.com>
>>From: "Ace Thompson" <acethompson at igniteweb.net>
>>Date: 08/15/2006 06:40PM
>>Subject: RE: [gme-users] GME tutorial question: a paradigm for
>>routers that have a fixed setof ports?
>>After I sent my response, I realized that the suggestion for using
>>library feature to model your "built-in" constructs really bumps
>>into your last comments in your email: that you'd like a language
>>modeling _with_ routers, not for creating the routers themselves.
>>Clearly using the library approach would pull you into building a
>>both for modeling routers and for modeling with routers, at least to
>>extent. Of course, the other approach involves using meta-GME to
>>routers, which might be a worse alternative depending on how much
>>will be involved; depending on your needs it may be easier simply to
>>a corner of your language that just won't be used too often by the
>>(i.e. the "model routers" part). I have done this in a number of
>>in order to allow myself a degree of flexibility rather than
>>something into the language. Of course the benefit depends on how
>>"hard-coded" something is (or not), and also on how your other tools
>>work with the user models...
>>At any rate, good luck (again),
>>From: gme-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
>>[mailto:gme-users-bounces at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of John
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:24 PM
>>To: gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
>>Subject: [gme-users] GME tutorial question: a paradigm for routers
>>a fixed setof ports?
>>I've been working through the long GME tutorials, and have
>>a question about the way "Routers" are modeled.
>>Suppose I want to provide the modeler with a paradigm
>>that includes router models that are *preconfigured* with
>>a standard set of ports, so that when the router is dragged
>>from the parts browser it is not necessary to manually add
>>the ports. In other words, suppose all of my routers always
>>have exactly ports "e0", "e1", and "s0", and I don't want
>>the modeler to have model that, nor do I want the modeler
>>constructing his or her own router. The modeler should
>>simply drag the router from the parts browser and connect
>>Sort of like grabbing an IC from a parts bin.
>>Is there a way to accomplish this with GME?
>>For those familiar with CoSMIC and PICML, I've looked at how
>>idl2picml imports IDL3 constructs and partially builds a PICML
>>model. The modeler can then select components from the model
>>browser to build CCM applications. The modeler can also work
>>with PICML constructs from the parts browser to build new
>>components. So, with PICML and idl2picml you can both model
>>components and model with components.
>>That's not really what I want to do. I would like to build a
>>paradigm that is good for modeling with routers, but not for
>>creating models of routers.
>>gme-users mailing list
>>gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
> gme-users mailing list
> gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
More information about the gme-users