|Re: WAssociation/WAssociationEnd concepts [message #469576 is a reply to message #469572]
||Tue, 03 February 2009 17:10
| Marcos Didonet Del Fabro
Registered: July 2009
In the most part of the applications, extensions to WLink and WLinkEnd
are enough. However, it may be necessary to create relationships between
links. In these cases, WAssociation elements are necessary.
For instance, we have used WAssociation elements in the matching
transformation "Similary propagation", which is available in the plug-in
(mmw_propagation extension). In this case, we create relationships
between links in order to propagate similarities between them.
I agree that this makes the navigation more difficult. However, this
enables having a limited set of WElementRef (only one by refered
element) with the ID of the linked elements. If the models are very
large, and if we don't use these both elements, the IDs will be
replicated in every WLinkEnd.
> I am evaluating opportunities of having MW Core metamodel as an
> extension of GMM metamodel (see Gabriel Barbier post from 4 november). I
> have some misc questions:
> - I try to understand the use case for WAssociation/WAssociationEnd
> concepts. I did not found any metamodel from MW uses cases which use
> them since WLink/WlinkEnd concepts were sufficient for weaving elements...
> - Moreover, is there a specific need for having two separate
> WLinkEnd/WElementRef concepts ? I mean, if WLink refers directly
> WElementRef, is there a loss of capabilities in specifying weaving
> metamodels extension ?
> Fabien GIQUEL.
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.03737 seconds