I try to use Mondrian to analyse a small appl I'm working on... I want to generate Uml like diagram on my appl.. It's working with MOUmlClass example: 'myPackage' .
My question:
In Mondrian how to eliminate easily the display of accessors method of each class of my package. In my code I did what follow to eliminate the test-classes but don't know how to access methods categorised as 'accessing' ?
"I want to strip all classes used for tests, except a class named XPTest that I want to be in the group'" exceptClass := theClasses select:[ :cl | cl asString = 'XPTest']. theClasses := theClasses reject:[ :cl | cl asString endsWith: 'Test']. theClasses := theClasses , exceptClass. "Now I want to eleminate all access methods "
Any help ? Raymond
I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this year.
Any is against ? Why ?
Edgar
On 20.02.2009, at 02:09, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this year.
Which work specifically do you mean would benefit from being split amongst more people? IMHO the "work" mainly consists of communicating, and bringing more people in grows the number of communication paths exponentially.
Any is against ?
Yes. When we discussed this today in the leadership meeting, the majority felt that 7 are quite enough, some even thought 5 would be sufficient.
Why ?
We don't have to do the *actual* work ourselves (at least not in our elected role), our job is to facilitate or, if necessary, delegate. Speaking as someone serving for 3 years now I can say that reaching consensus with 7 is already hard, and more would make group meetings quite uncomfortable.
- Bert -
+1 to all of the below. I would support a reduction to 5 as it is my understanding is that when a group that needs to communicate well grows beyond this number the efficiency of communication drops significantly.
Ken
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 02:33 +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 20.02.2009, at 02:09, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this year.
Which work specifically do you mean would benefit from being split amongst more people? IMHO the "work" mainly consists of communicating, and bringing more people in grows the number of communication paths exponentially.
Any is against ?
Yes. When we discussed this today in the leadership meeting, the majority felt that 7 are quite enough, some even thought 5 would be sufficient.
Why ?
We don't have to do the *actual* work ourselves (at least not in our elected role), our job is to facilitate or, if necessary, delegate. Speaking as someone serving for 3 years now I can say that reaching consensus with 7 is already hard, and more would make group meetings quite uncomfortable.
- Bert -
Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this year.
Any is against ? Why ?
Organizational issues. Having too many people makes organizing meetings across time zones a nightmare. Seven is already at the high mark and you can see that most meetings are not fully attended. And once meetings aren't fully attended you start the next meeting by repeating what happened on the last. The larger the number of people the more you need to repeat and often this ends up in having the same discussion that you had in the previous meeting all over again. Then there is finding consensus. The fewer people involved the easier it usually is to get consensus.
I find seven a good number because it is large enough that you can loose two members without the board evaporating and it is just about the largest number one can reasonably manage that way.
If we had less churn amongst the board members I would probably argue for five instead of seven, mostly because that also gives the community a way of making choices. But this is definitely not a good choice if the dropout rate of the board is what it's been in the past.
So I'm in favor of sticking with seven for the time being.
Cheers, - Andreas
"Andreas" == Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de writes:
Andreas> If we had less churn amongst the board members I would probably argue Andreas> for five instead of seven, mostly because that also gives the Andreas> community a way of making choices. But this is definitely not a good Andreas> choice if the dropout rate of the board is what it's been in the Andreas> past.
I'd be a bit wary about 5. There *are* tasks that come out of each meeting, and spreading it out a bit has helped.
I'd also be a bit wary about 9. It's tough enough finding an overlapping consistent slot in the schedules of 7 busy people. Nine would be frightening. And one thing I know is that having everyone be at pretty much every live meeting this year has been quite useful.
2009/2/20 Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de:
Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this year.
Any is against ? Why ?
Organizational issues. Having too many people makes organizing meetings across time zones a nightmare. Seven is already at the high mark and you can see that most meetings are not fully attended. And once meetings aren't fully attended you start the next meeting by repeating what happened on the last. The larger the number of people the more you need to repeat and often this ends up in having the same discussion that you had in the previous meeting all over again. Then there is finding consensus. The fewer people involved the easier it usually is to get consensus.
I find seven a good number because it is large enough that you can loose two members without the board evaporating and it is just about the largest number one can reasonably manage that way.
If we had less churn amongst the board members I would probably argue for five instead of seven, mostly because that also gives the community a way of making choices. But this is definitely not a good choice if the dropout rate of the board is what it's been in the past.
So I'm in favor of sticking with seven for the time being.
+1 i don't see why Leadership team should grow in numbers. Speaking about lack of manpower, i'd prefer to see more people in other teams, who actually do the job. Looking at current Leadership team, i can say, that we spent a little attention on this. I think that recruiting people to the teams, inspiring people to join, should be one of the primary function of Leadership. Without such people, Leadership is just a king without kingdom. And what is the point in growing bureacracy then, when there is no one left who want to work with it?
Cheers,
- Andreas
On 2/20/09 1:38 AM, "Igor Stasenko" siguctua@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/20 Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de:
Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this year.
Any is against ? Why ?
Organizational issues. Having too many people makes organizing meetings across time zones a nightmare. Seven is already at the high mark and you can see that most meetings are not fully attended. And once meetings aren't fully attended you start the next meeting by repeating what happened on the last. The larger the number of people the more you need to repeat and often this ends up in having the same discussion that you had in the previous meeting all over again. Then there is finding consensus. The fewer people involved the easier it usually is to get consensus.
I find seven a good number because it is large enough that you can loose two members without the board evaporating and it is just about the largest number one can reasonably manage that way.
If we had less churn amongst the board members I would probably argue for five instead of seven, mostly because that also gives the community a way of making choices. But this is definitely not a good choice if the dropout rate of the board is what it's been in the past.
So I'm in favor of sticking with seven for the time being.
+1 i don't see why Leadership team should grow in numbers. Speaking about lack of manpower, i'd prefer to see more people in other teams, who actually do the job. Looking at current Leadership team, i can say, that we spent a little attention on this. I think that recruiting people to the teams, inspiring people to join, should be one of the primary function of Leadership. Without such people, Leadership is just a king without kingdom. And what is the point in growing bureacracy then, when there is no one left who want to work with it?
Cheers,
- Andreas
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Ok I see all read the book or think the same about this.
I repeat the same question here so all could see our opinions.
I also agree 7 is a fair number for all reasons expressed here.
Only I don't like the word Leaderships.
We don't need people follow us as they don't was sheeps.
We need run a enterprise as Apple , Disney, Sun, HP , etc.
So I like Board and all squeakers was our owners and bought "shares" of Squeak Inc each time they download Squeak.
So the Board needs a CEO ?
Not me ...
I like Andreas as CEO
Edgar
On 20.02.2009, at 09:55, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
Only I don't like the word Leaderships.
Me neither. "Board" has the longer tradition here, it's just not the "board of directors" anymore, which only applied when we were trying to create a separate Squeak Foundation.
Idea: I liked the term "Sugar Labs Oversight Board", and not only because of its acronym. Does anybody have a backronym for "SQUIBs"? ;)
We don't need people follow us as they don't was sheeps.
We need run a enterprise as Apple , Disney, Sun, HP , etc.
Sorry, are we talking about the same community?
So I like Board and all squeakers was our owners and bought "shares" of Squeak Inc each time they download Squeak.
Hehe. Not a bad thought :)
So the Board needs a CEO ?
Don't think so, but in the past we usually chose a spokesperson for the board, and appointed single members for specific tasks (like for talking to the Software Freedom Conservancy).
- Bert -
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 20.02.2009, at 09:55, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
Only I don't like the word Leaderships.
Me neither. "Board" has the longer tradition here, it's just not the "board of directors" anymore, which only applied when we were trying to create a separate Squeak Foundation.
Idea: I liked the term "Sugar Labs Oversight Board", and not only because of its acronym. Does anybody have a backronym for "SQUIBs"? ;)
I don't like the "Leadership" word either (but since it is the "official" name currently I try to use it).
But I think the SFC had something to do with us not using the word "board", right?
regards, Göran
On 2/20/09 9:49 AM, "Göran Krampe" goran@krampe.se wrote:
But I think the SFC had something to do with us not using the word "board", right?
Could expand ?
Edgar
On 20.02.2009, at 13:02, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
On 2/20/09 9:49 AM, "Göran Krampe" goran@krampe.se wrote:
But I think the SFC had something to do with us not using the word "board", right?
Could expand ?
We are trying to join the SFC, which would handle the legal and financial issues, which is far simpler than incorporating on our own:
http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/
The SFC has a "board of directors". That is a fixed legal term and they asked us to not use it to refer to the community-elected representatives.
But if you look at the list of projects there is at least one (Sugar Labs) that has an "oversight board" so that term is apparently fine with the SFC.
- Bert -
On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this year.
Any is against ? Why ?
There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be elected even if you don't vote for them.
--- Mark Volkmann http://www.ociweb.com/mark
On 2/20/09 9:57 AM, "Mark Volkmann" mark@ociweb.com wrote:
There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be elected even if you don't vote for them.
Very good point
Sometimes I do odd questions for having good answers. Sometimes I put myself in the opposite side (Advocatus Diaboli), but such duty requires more faith. Sometimes I act as Defensor del Pueblo (Ombusdman) trying to be the voice of many working in silence.
And as some very good friend say, Edison do 20.000 crazy things before he found the light bulb we are using today.
Edgar
"Edgar" == Edgar J De Cleene edgardec2001@yahoo.com.ar writes:
Edgar> And as some very good friend say, Edison do 20.000 crazy things before Edgar> he found the light bulb we are using today.
Except that it was actually Joseph Swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Swan) who invented the light bulb -- Edison merely took credit. :)
On 20.02.2009, at 12:57, Mark Volkmann mark@ociweb.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this year.
Any is against ? Why ?
There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be elected even if you don't vote for them.
No, we have a "none" choice in the elections, and everybody who loses against that is not elected.
- Bert -
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:10:54 +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 20.02.2009, at 12:57, Mark Volkmann mark@ociweb.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this year.
Any is against ? Why ?
There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be elected even if you don't vote for them.
No, we have a "none" choice in the elections, and everybody who loses against that is not elected.
:) you're good with head-up these days ;)
- Bert -
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
On 20.02.2009, at 12:57, Mark Volkmann mark@ociweb.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
I have The CRC Card Book of by David Bellin and Susan Suchman Simone and yes, many people could be difficult in meetings.
But as we was so few and work is too heavy, we could have more members this year.
Any is against ? Why ?
There might be someone you really don't want to be on the board. If more than seven can be on it, the chances are good they will be elected even if you don't vote for them.
No, we have a "none" choice in the elections, and everybody who loses against that is not elected.
Correct. Last year it was called "None Of The Above".
regards, Göran
"Göran" == Göran Krampe goran@krampe.se writes:
Göran> Correct. Last year it was called "None Of The Above".
Oooh... This year, can it be Captain Dunsel (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Dunsel)?
:)
There has been much research upon this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_Inefficiency
Keith
On 20.02.2009, at 13:26, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Göran" == Göran Krampe goran@krampe.se writes:
Göran> Correct. Last year it was called "None Of The Above".
Oooh... This year, can it be Captain Dunsel (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Dunsel)?
If it made the purpose more clear, sure. I don't think it would.
I find the term "None Of The Above" rather incomprehensible, it seems to only make sense on a paper ballot. In the online voting system we used one would rank candidates that should *not* be on the board "below" that item.
But I do not have a better idea.
- Bert -
From: Bert Freudenberg
On 20.02.2009, at 13:26, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> "Göran" == Göran Krampe goran@krampe.se writes:
Göran> Correct. Last year it was called "None Of The Above".
Oooh... This year, can it be Captain Dunsel (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Dunsel)?
If it made the purpose more clear, sure. I don't think it would.
I find the term "None Of The Above" rather incomprehensible, it seems to only make sense on a paper ballot. In the online voting system we used one would rank candidates that should *not* be on the board "below" that item.
But I do not have a better idea.
The concept is that we are voting against all other candidates not listed so how about:
"Against All Other Candidates"
or something like that.
Ron
On 20-Feb-09, at 5:59 AM, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
I find the term "None Of The Above" rather incomprehensible, it seems to only make sense on a paper ballot. In the online voting system we used one would rank candidates that should *not* be on the board "below" that item.
But I do not have a better idea.
How about None of the Below?
On Feb 20, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Colin Putney wrote:
On 20-Feb-09, at 5:59 AM, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
I find the term "None Of The Above" rather incomprehensible, it seems to only make sense on a paper ballot. In the online voting system we used one would rank candidates that should *not* be on the board "below" that item.
But I do not have a better idea.
How about None of the Below?
That sounds good.
--- Mark Volkmann http://www.ociweb.com/mark
How about three?
"Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
When starting a new thread of conversation, please don't do so by replying to an unrelated message. The only way I can keep up with squeak-dev is by using a threaded newsreader to gmane, and killing some of the threads. I almost didn't see this whole conversation.
thanks,
-C
-- Craig Latta www.netjam.org next show: 2009-03-13 (www.thishere.org)
Dear Raymond,
Since a few weeks, I have been doing a major overall of Mondrian to make SqueakMondrian compatible with the Visualworks version. The problem you describes does not seem to be mondrian related. You basically need to identify whether methods have the same name than instance variable. A very inefficient way could be for instance:
TranslucentColor methodDict keys reject: [:k | (k last = $:) ifTrue: [ (TranslucentColor instVarNames includes: k allButLast asString) ] ifFalse: [(TranslucentColor instVarNames includes: k asString)]].
The returned by this expression does not contains "alpha" and "alpha:" methods.
Alexandre
On 20 Feb 2009, at 00:39, Raymond Asselin wrote:
I try to use Mondrian to analyse a small appl I'm working on... I want to generate Uml like diagram on my appl.. It's working with MOUmlClass example: 'myPackage' .
My question:
In Mondrian how to eliminate easily the display of accessors method of each class of my package. In my code I did what follow to eliminate the test-classes but don't know how to access methods categorised as 'accessing' ?
"I want to strip all classes used for tests, except a class named XPTest that I want to be in the group'" exceptClass := theClasses select:[ :cl | cl asString = 'XPTest']. theClasses := theClasses reject:[ :cl | cl asString endsWith: 'Test']. theClasses := theClasses , exceptClass. "Now I want to eleminate all access methods "
Any help ? Raymond
Le 21/02/09, Bergel, Alexandre bergel@iam.unibe.ch écrivait :
Dear Raymond,
Since a few weeks, I have been doing a major overall of
Mondrian to
make SqueakMondrian compatible with the Visualworks version. The problem you describes does not seem to be mondrian
related. You
basically need to identify whether methods have the same name
than
instance variable. A very inefficient way could be for instance:
TranslucentColor methodDict keys reject: [:k | (k last = $:) ifTrue: [ (TranslucentColor instVarNames includes: k
allButLast
asString) ] ifFalse: [(TranslucentColor instVarNames includes: k
asString)]].
The returned by this expression does not contains "alpha" and
"alpha:"
methods.
Alexandre
On 20 Feb 2009, at 00:39, Raymond Asselin wrote:
I try to use Mondrian to analyse a small appl I'm working on... I want to generate Uml like diagram on my appl.. It's working with MOUmlClass example: 'myPackage' .
My question:
In Mondrian how to eliminate easily the display of accessors
method of
each class of my package. In my code I did what follow to
eliminate
the test-classes but don't know how to access methods
categorised as
'accessing' ?
"I want to strip all classes used for tests, except a class
named
XPTest that I want to be in the group'" exceptClass := theClasses select:[ :cl | cl asString =
'XPTest'].
theClasses := theClasses reject:[ :cl | cl asString endsWith: 'Test']. theClasses := theClasses , exceptClass. "Now I want to eleminate all access methods "
Any help ? Raymond
Merci pour la réponse.
I will try it immediately
Raymond
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andreas Raab -
Bergel, Alexandre -
Bert Freudenberg -
Colin Putney -
Craig Latta -
Edgar J. De Cleene -
Göran Krampe -
Igor Stasenko -
jhallman＠frb.gov -
Keith Hodges -
Ken Causey -
Klaus D. Witzel -
Mark Volkmann -
merlyn＠stonehenge.com -
Raymond Asselin -
Ron Teitelbaum