Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » Papyrus » Realizing Constraints
Realizing Constraints [message #552954] Sun, 15 August 2010 01:45 Go to next message
Ed Willink is currently offline Ed Willink
Messages: 4036
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi

I'm trying to emulate Slide 44 of
http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/uml2/docs/presentations/ EclipseCon2008_LongTalk_NewFeaturesOfUML2_files/frame.htm
using Papyrus.

The support for Constraints seems very counter-intuitive.

a) A Constraint must be dropped as a top-level diagram element;
a Properties entry does not seem to be present.

b) The Constraint can then be given a Context from the Properties
drop-down; an edge does not seem to be possible.

c) The Properties offers a large 'Constrained Elements' entry field,
but only a small Specification field.

d) The Specification field allows only selection of literals already
defined; no ability to create a new OCL expression.

e) Giving an operation constraint a BodyCondition role is not possible
using e.g. a <<body>> sterotype.

f) The Specification is not displayed within the {} of the Constraint.

It seems that Papyrus provides some creation help through the Constraint
node but full entry requires detailed understanding of UML and use of
the UML2 model level editing.

Am I missing something?

Regards

Ed Willink
Re: Realizing Constraints [message #553088 is a reply to message #552954] Mon, 16 August 2010 08:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Patrick Tessier is currently offline Patrick Tessier
Messages: 142
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi,

I thinks that these problems comes from a lack of functionnality in papyrus.
A value specification can be attached to a constraint. By defaut this is a
string expresssion.

It could more interesting to attached a opaque expression and change if the
user want the kind of the value expression.


If not, in papyrus you put a constraint everywhere and display it in the
diagram.
if you want add an edge, you can use 'link' tootip. It will fill the feature
constrained element.

Patrick


"Ed Willink" <ed@willink.me.uk> a
Re: Realizing Constraints [message #553337 is a reply to message #553088] Tue, 17 August 2010 04:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Patrick Tessier is currently offline Patrick Tessier
Messages: 142
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I thank you for your report, and I think that ti is an important
funtionality

Could you add your enhancement in the bugzilla.
thanks,
Patrick

"Patrick Tessier" <Patrick.Tessier@cea.fr> a
Re: Realizing Constraints [message #553504 is a reply to message #553337] Tue, 17 August 2010 13:07 Go to previous message
Ed Willink is currently offline Ed Willink
Messages: 4036
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Patrick
#
Done: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=322933

Regards

Ed Willink

On 17/08/2010 09:16, Patrick Tessier wrote:
> I thank you for your report, and I think that ti is an important
> funtionality
>
> Could you add your enhancement in the bugzilla.
> thanks,
> Patrick
>
> "Patrick Tessier"<Patrick.Tessier@cea.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
> i4bc23$lfc$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I thinks that these problems comes from a lack of functionnality in
>> papyrus.
>> A value specification can be attached to a constraint. By defaut this is a
>> string expresssion.
>>
>> It could more interesting to attached a opaque expression and change if
>> the user want the kind of the value expression.
>>
>>
>> If not, in papyrus you put a constraint everywhere and display it in the
>> diagram.
>> if you want add an edge, you can use 'link' tootip. It will fill the
>> feature constrained element.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>> "Ed Willink"<ed@willink.me.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> i47ut9$ono$1@build.eclipse.org...
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I'm trying to emulate Slide 44 of
>>> http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/uml2/docs/presentations/ EclipseCon2008_LongTalk_NewFeaturesOfUML2_files/frame.htm
>>> using Papyrus.
>>>
>>> The support for Constraints seems very counter-intuitive.
>>>
>>> a) A Constraint must be dropped as a top-level diagram element;
>>> a Properties entry does not seem to be present.
>>>
>>> b) The Constraint can then be given a Context from the Properties
>>> drop-down; an edge does not seem to be possible.
>>>
>>> c) The Properties offers a large 'Constrained Elements' entry field,
>>> but only a small Specification field.
>>>
>>> d) The Specification field allows only selection of literals already
>>> defined; no ability to create a new OCL expression.
>>>
>>> e) Giving an operation constraint a BodyCondition role is not possible
>>> using e.g. a<<body>> sterotype.
>>>
>>> f) The Specification is not displayed within the {} of the Constraint.
>>>
>>> It seems that Papyrus provides some creation help through the Constraint
>>> node but full entry requires detailed understanding of UML and use of the
>>> UML2 model level editing.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Ed Willink
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Realizing Constraints [message #606020 is a reply to message #552954] Mon, 16 August 2010 08:47 Go to previous message
Patrick Tessier is currently offline Patrick Tessier
Messages: 142
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi,

I thinks that these problems comes from a lack of functionnality in papyrus.
A value specification can be attached to a constraint. By defaut this is a
string expresssion.

It could more interesting to attached a opaque expression and change if the
user want the kind of the value expression.


If not, in papyrus you put a constraint everywhere and display it in the
diagram.
if you want add an edge, you can use 'link' tootip. It will fill the feature
constrained element.

Patrick


"Ed Willink" <ed@willink.me.uk> a
Re: Realizing Constraints [message #606023 is a reply to message #553088] Tue, 17 August 2010 04:16 Go to previous message
Patrick Tessier is currently offline Patrick Tessier
Messages: 142
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I thank you for your report, and I think that ti is an important
funtionality

Could you add your enhancement in the bugzilla.
thanks,
Patrick

"Patrick Tessier" <Patrick.Tessier@cea.fr> a
Re: Realizing Constraints [message #606027 is a reply to message #553337] Tue, 17 August 2010 13:07 Go to previous message
Ed Willink is currently offline Ed Willink
Messages: 4036
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi Patrick
#
Done: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=322933

Regards

Ed Willink

On 17/08/2010 09:16, Patrick Tessier wrote:
> I thank you for your report, and I think that ti is an important
> funtionality
>
> Could you add your enhancement in the bugzilla.
> thanks,
> Patrick
>
> "Patrick Tessier"<Patrick.Tessier@cea.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
> i4bc23$lfc$1@build.eclipse.org...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I thinks that these problems comes from a lack of functionnality in
>> papyrus.
>> A value specification can be attached to a constraint. By defaut this is a
>> string expresssion.
>>
>> It could more interesting to attached a opaque expression and change if
>> the user want the kind of the value expression.
>>
>>
>> If not, in papyrus you put a constraint everywhere and display it in the
>> diagram.
>> if you want add an edge, you can use 'link' tootip. It will fill the
>> feature constrained element.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>> "Ed Willink"<ed@willink.me.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
>> i47ut9$ono$1@build.eclipse.org...
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I'm trying to emulate Slide 44 of
>>> http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/uml2/docs/presentations/ EclipseCon2008_LongTalk_NewFeaturesOfUML2_files/frame.htm
>>> using Papyrus.
>>>
>>> The support for Constraints seems very counter-intuitive.
>>>
>>> a) A Constraint must be dropped as a top-level diagram element;
>>> a Properties entry does not seem to be present.
>>>
>>> b) The Constraint can then be given a Context from the Properties
>>> drop-down; an edge does not seem to be possible.
>>>
>>> c) The Properties offers a large 'Constrained Elements' entry field,
>>> but only a small Specification field.
>>>
>>> d) The Specification field allows only selection of literals already
>>> defined; no ability to create a new OCL expression.
>>>
>>> e) Giving an operation constraint a BodyCondition role is not possible
>>> using e.g. a<<body>> sterotype.
>>>
>>> f) The Specification is not displayed within the {} of the Constraint.
>>>
>>> It seems that Papyrus provides some creation help through the Constraint
>>> node but full entry requires detailed understanding of UML and use of the
>>> UML2 model level editing.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Ed Willink
>>
>>
>
>
Previous Topic:Realizing Constraints
Next Topic:add interaction operands to a combined fragment
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Sep 01 07:29:17 EDT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.06190 seconds