Skip to main content


Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » UML2 » Package::makesVisible insufficiently defined as OCL?
Package::makesVisible insufficiently defined as OCL? [message #477033] Fri, 07 March 2008 19:17 Go to next message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix DornerFriend
Messages: 676
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hey,

I got another doubt about the superstructure spec. The Operation

Package::makesVisible() is defined on page 108. The text says:

The query makesVisible() defines whether a Package makes an element
visible outside itself. Elements with no visibility
and elements with public visibility are made visible.

The OCL definition is, as I understand it, lacking the check for el's
visibility status:

pre: self.member->includes(el)
makesVisible =
-- case: the element is in the package itself
(ownedMember->includes(el)) or

-- the treats package imports
-- ...

This says: If el is an ownedMember, then makesVisible(el) is true. No
matter if el's visibility is private, public, or absent! So - contrary
to the text - owned members with private visibility are also made visible!

Comments are so much welcome...

Felix
Re: Package::makesVisible insufficiently defined as OCL? [message #477034 is a reply to message #477033] Fri, 07 March 2008 19:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix DornerFriend
Messages: 676
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I just tested the implementation. It does as I expect: private owned
members are not made visible. Note that the API doc is similar to the
OCL definition and also lacks (?) the !private check.

Felix
Re: Package::makesVisible insufficiently defined as OCL? [message #477039 is a reply to message #477034] Mon, 10 March 2008 01:03 Go to previous message
Kenn Hussey is currently offline Kenn HusseyFriend
Messages: 1620
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Felix,

Much of the OCL in the specification is either missing, incomplete, or
incorrect. Unfortunately, the Javadoc is generated based on the comments and
OCL from the specification; we can raise an issue with the UML 2.2 RTF and
hopefully it will get fixed in the next release...

Kenn

"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fqs4vs$ji6$1@build.eclipse.org...
>I just tested the implementation. It does as I expect: private owned
>members are not made visible. Note that the API doc is similar to the OCL
>definition and also lacks (?) the !private check.
>
> Felix
Re: Package::makesVisible insufficiently defined as OCL? [message #626150 is a reply to message #477033] Fri, 07 March 2008 19:27 Go to previous message
Felix Dorner is currently offline Felix DornerFriend
Messages: 676
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I just tested the implementation. It does as I expect: private owned
members are not made visible. Note that the API doc is similar to the
OCL definition and also lacks (?) the !private check.

Felix
Re: Package::makesVisible insufficiently defined as OCL? [message #626155 is a reply to message #477034] Mon, 10 March 2008 01:03 Go to previous message
Kenn Hussey is currently offline Kenn HusseyFriend
Messages: 1620
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Felix,

Much of the OCL in the specification is either missing, incomplete, or
incorrect. Unfortunately, the Javadoc is generated based on the comments and
OCL from the specification; we can raise an issue with the UML 2.2 RTF and
hopefully it will get fixed in the next release...

Kenn

"Felix Dorner" <felix_do@web.de> wrote in message
news:fqs4vs$ji6$1@build.eclipse.org...
>I just tested the implementation. It does as I expect: private owned
>members are not made visible. Note that the API doc is similar to the OCL
>definition and also lacks (?) the !private check.
>
> Felix
Previous Topic:Private Class from different Namespace as property type
Next Topic:Welcome to the eclipse.modeling.mdt.uml2 group!
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Aug 15 16:26:10 GMT 2022

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02238 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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

Back to the top