Skip to main content


Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » Papyrus » Arrows should mean dependency and not navigation association Papyrus
Arrows should mean dependency and not navigation association Papyrus [message #1806170] Sat, 04 May 2019 17:17 Go to next message
Eduardo Gutierrez is currently offline Eduardo GutierrezFriend
Messages: 32
Registered: December 2017
Member
When you want to represent an association in papyrus you must include the arrow to indicate navigation. If not by default is considered as no navigation between classes, and the code is generated according to this.

Id like that papyrus could change this behaviour: when you write the association between two classes, you should write a line without arrows to indicate association. When you want to mean dependency, you can add an arrow in one direction ( dependency is uni-directional) association.

Sorry for my bad english, but here you can take a look about my opinion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_diagram
the asssociation is normally represented as a line

Also the arrow should mean dependency ( uni-directional association)

For example in this relation :
index.php/fa/35467/0/

You have to enable the navigation direction both sides from bed to floor and floor to bed.... by default other software and uml that arrows should not appear...

For example in visual paradigm:

index.php/fa/35468/0/

So i vote to use the visual paradigm way, and if not at least set it as an option...

Thanks in advance

[Updated on: Sat, 04 May 2019 17:21]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Arrows should mean dependency and not navigation association Papyrus [message #1806184 is a reply to message #1806170] Sun, 05 May 2019 12:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Christian W. Damus is currently offline Christian W. DamusFriend
Messages: 1199
Registered: July 2009
Location: Canada
Senior Member

Hi,

I'm fairly certain that this association presentation conforms to the notation options prescribed by the UML specification. But in any case, you may be able to customize it using the diagram's CSS styling capability:

https://help.eclipse.org/2019-03/topic/org.eclipse.papyrus.infra.gmfdiag.css.doc/target/generated-eclipse-help/css.html?cp=75_1_2_5_1#Style_properties

Look for the 'targetDecoration' and 'sourceDecoration' properties. All of the supported values for these properties don't seem to be enumerated here; you may have to look in the source code to find the rest.

HTH,

Christian
Re: Arrows should mean dependency and not navigation association Papyrus [message #1806191 is a reply to message #1806184] Sun, 05 May 2019 18:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Carsten Pitz is currently offline Carsten PitzFriend
Messages: 172
Registered: May 2015
Location: Germany
Senior Member
Hi,

as the figure 11.29 and 11.30 of the UML 2.5.1 specification (https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.5.1/PDF) shows, the arrows might be omitted if the association is navigable in both directions.

As a result both notations are allowed by the UML specification.

By the way, Visual Paradigm can also show the arrows as shown in the diagram attached.

One more detail:
The bullets in front of the arrows of the association shown as the Papyrus example by Eduardo denotes both ends of the association are owned by the classes associated.
In the Visual Paradigm example given the association ends are owned by the association itself.

Best regards,
Carsten

[Updated on: Sun, 05 May 2019 18:35]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Arrows should mean dependency and not navigation association Papyrus [message #1806210 is a reply to message #1806170] Mon, 06 May 2019 09:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eduardo Gutierrez is currently offline Eduardo GutierrezFriend
Messages: 32
Registered: December 2017
Member
But could be confusing the use of arrows showing both navigation and dependency.... Most of the tutorials and the wiki post above shows that arrows are omitted in bi-directional associations.

Thanks
Re: Arrows should mean dependency and not navigation association Papyrus [message #1806218 is a reply to message #1806210] Mon, 06 May 2019 09:56 Go to previous message
Carsten Pitz is currently offline Carsten PitzFriend
Messages: 172
Registered: May 2015
Location: Germany
Senior Member
The graphical notation of a dependency as specified by the UML 2.5.1 specification (chapter 7.7) is a dashed line. Associations as mentioned before are represented by solid lines. Consequently associations and dependencies could be distinguished by their respective line style.

Carsten


Previous Topic:Unable to write n-ary relationships in papyrus, Is a must !!
Next Topic:State machine animation
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Dec 14 23:48:38 GMT 2019

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02141 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software

Back to the top