|
| Re: EOpposite on derived EReferences [message #1091391 is a reply to message #1091236] |
Wed, 21 August 2013 12:44  |
|
Hi, Felix,
If these references are both derived and not changeable, I think
there's no harm in making them mutual opposites. The UML metamodel
does this all over the place (e.g., Element::ownedElement <-->
Element::owner)
cW
On 2013-08-21 08:09:56 +0000, Felix Dorner said:
> Hi,
>
> I have an Ecore model similar to this one:
>
> Person
> - appartments: Appartment [derived]
>
> AppartmentRegistration
> - appartment: Appartment
> - person: Person
>
> Appartment:
> - person: Person [derived]
>
> The two derived features are computed from all available
> AppartmentRegistrations.
>
> Now, I translate this model to one where "AppartmentRegistration" is
> removed, and the two features are no longer derived,
> Persons/Appartments would reference themselves directly. I would now
> set the two features additionally as eOpposites in the target model.
>
> Would it do any harm if they were already set as eOpposites in the
> source model, even if they are derived? This way I wouldn't have to
> touch the eOpposite feature when copying the references from the source
> to the target model.
>
>
> Felix
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02860 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
