|
Re: Navigable associations [message #14732 is a reply to message #14701] |
Thu, 19 March 2009 23:58 |
Eric Dillon Messages: 103 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Marc,
Well we didn't want to enforce the need for navigability of the
associations.
Yet I believe we made it so that the dialogs/editors would kind of "gently
force you to have at least one of ends navigable". We found that to be a
nice usability feature.
It seems however that it is a bit confusing, so maybe worth capturing as a
bugzilla.
Thanks,
Eric
On 3/16/09 8:58 AM, in article
700e1b5bd66911677147a32ea98fcd52$1@www.eclipse.org, "Marc FLAUW"
<marc.flauw@hp.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems Tigerstripe requires at least one end of an association to be
> navigable.
>
> However, when both ends are never read locally, this error does not show
> up.
> If these wranings are suppressed (@SuppressWarnings("unused")), then the
> error then shows up.
>
> Strange.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marc
>
|
|
|
Re: Navigable associations [message #564507 is a reply to message #14701] |
Thu, 19 March 2009 23:58 |
Eric Dillon Messages: 103 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Marc,
Well we didn't want to enforce the need for navigability of the
associations.
Yet I believe we made it so that the dialogs/editors would kind of "gently
force you to have at least one of ends navigable". We found that to be a
nice usability feature.
It seems however that it is a bit confusing, so maybe worth capturing as a
bugzilla.
Thanks,
Eric
On 3/16/09 8:58 AM, in article
700e1b5bd66911677147a32ea98fcd52$1@www.eclipse.org, "Marc FLAUW"
<marc.flauw@hp.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems Tigerstripe requires at least one end of an association to be
> navigable.
>
> However, when both ends are never read locally, this error does not show
> up.
> If these wranings are suppressed (@SuppressWarnings("unused")), then the
> error then shows up.
>
> Strange.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marc
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02919 seconds