| Realizing Constraints [message #552954] |
Sun, 15 August 2010 01:45  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
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 #553504 is a reply to message #553337] |
Tue, 17 August 2010 13:07  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
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 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
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 #606027 is a reply to message #553337] |
Tue, 17 August 2010 13:07 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
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
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04467 seconds
Home