Home » Modeling » EMF "Technology" (Ecore Tools, EMFatic, etc) » Issue with the definition of gmf.nodes
Issue with the definition of gmf.nodes [message #1252824] |
Fri, 21 February 2014 16:42 |
Jonh Cost Messages: 3 Registered: February 2014 |
Junior Member |
|
|
Hello! First of all I would like to apologize if this is not the appropriate place, but the section seems to be a little death.
I have the following metamodel and its notation GMF:
@gmf(foo="bar")
@namespace(uri="casemodel", prefix="casemodel")
package caseModel;
@gmf.diagram(foo="bar")
class CaseModel {
val Root[1] root;
}
abstract class CaseNode {
id attr String[1] name;
@gmf.link
val Member[*] members;
}
@gmf.node(label="name", figure="rectangle", border.width="2", border.style="solid", label.placement="internal", size="50,50")
class Root extends CaseNode {
}
class Act extends CaseNode, Member {
attr int[1] cardinality;
}
abstract class Member {
}
@gmf.node(label="name", figure="rectangle", border.width="2", border.style="solid", label.placement="internal", size="50,50")
class ActOne extends Act {
}
@gmf.node(label="name", figure="rectangle", border.width="2", border.style="solid", label.placement="internal", size="50,50")
class ActTwo extends Act {
}
I want to create three nodes: Root, Arcone and ArcTwo. The Root node must have a connection to Arcone and another for ArcTwo, but the problem is that the definition of the GMF notation in EMF file is not allowing me to do what I want, because I can not select the nodes Arcone and ArcTwo in the pallete.
How can I solve the problem? I know that is the incorrect definition of the GMF notation, but I can not solve it. Thank you!
|
|
|
Re: Issue with the definition of gmf.nodes [message #1252843 is a reply to message #1252824] |
Fri, 21 February 2014 17:01 |
Ed Merks Messages: 33108 Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Jonh,
I think this is a question about using Epsilon, right? Better you post
to the eclipse.epsilon forum in that case.
On 21/02/2014 5:44 PM, Jonh Cost wrote:
> Hello! First of all I would like to apologize if this is not the
> appropriate place, but the section seems to be a little death.
>
> I have the following metamodel and its notation GMF:
>
> @gmf(foo="bar")
> @namespace(uri="casemodel", prefix="casemodel")
> package caseModel;
>
> @gmf.diagram(foo="bar")
> class CaseModel {
> val Root[1] root;
> }
>
> abstract class CaseNode {
> id attr String[1] name;
> @gmf.link
> val Member[*] members;
> }
>
> @gmf.node(label="name", figure="rectangle", border.width="2",
> border.style="solid", label.placement="internal", size="50,50")
> class Root extends CaseNode {
> }
>
> class Act extends CaseNode, Member {
> attr int[1] cardinality;
> }
>
> abstract class Member {
> }
>
> @gmf.node(label="name", figure="rectangle", border.width="2",
> border.style="solid", label.placement="internal", size="50,50")
> class ActOne extends Act {
> }
>
> @gmf.node(label="name", figure="rectangle", border.width="2",
> border.style="solid", label.placement="internal", size="50,50")
> class ActTwo extends Act {
> }
>
> I want to create three nodes: Root, Arcone and ArcTwo. The Root node
> must have a connection to Arcone and another for ArcTwo, but the
> problem is that the definition of the GMF notation in EMF file is not
> allowing me to do what I want, because I can not select the nodes
> Arcone and ArcTwo in the pallete.
>
> How can I solve the problem? I know that is the incorrect definition
> of the GMF notation, but I can not solve it. Thank you!
Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Mar 19 11:20:14 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03260 seconds
|