Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Modeling » UML2 » UML-specific Diagnostician?
UML-specific Diagnostician? [message #1366614] Mon, 19 May 2014 11:49 Go to next message
Eclipse UserFriend
Hi!

Just wondering - is there a reason why there is an anonymous
UML-specific subclass of Diagnostician hidden inside the
UMLActionBarContributor? Wouldn't it be reasonable to provide a public
UMLDiagnostician so that others can use it, too?

Patrick
Re: UML-specific Diagnostician? [message #1366649 is a reply to message #1366614] Mon, 19 May 2014 12:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ed Willink is currently offline Ed WillinkFriend
Messages: 4280
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Hi

Yes ... But

Unfortunately the design of Diagnostician/EValidator is not as flexible
as some other parts of EMF.

Consequently extending projects pursue nasty clone and edit policies to
adjust behavior. No one really wants to see such horrible code made public.

Papyrus and OCL have further extensions to remedy the narrow focus of
Eclipse UML2 validation as strictly UML-as-specified rather than
everything-in-the-UML-model. Consequently in the UML Model editor you
need to use the OCL->Validate option to validate OCL aspects of UML.

It would be great of someone had the time to analyze the diverse re-use
difficulties and refresh the design.

Regards

Ed Willink



On 19/05/2014 12:49, Patrick Könemann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Just wondering - is there a reason why there is an anonymous
> UML-specific subclass of Diagnostician hidden inside the
> UMLActionBarContributor? Wouldn't it be reasonable to provide a public
> UMLDiagnostician so that others can use it, too?
>
> Patrick
Re: UML-specific Diagnostician? [message #1366757 is a reply to message #1366649] Mon, 19 May 2014 13:08 Go to previous message
Eclipse UserFriend
Hi Ed,

I agree that the Diagnostician might not be the most flexible validation
technology because it only validates predefined static model
constraints, but it is a very simple way for validating syntactical
correctness. The anonymous subclass for UML mentioned before only adds
validation of stereotype applications and reports them at the
stereotyped elements because the stereotype application are located
elsewhere in the resource. As I see it, this is an essential part for
syntactical model validation.

The anonymous validator does not add anything else, and we do not want
add anything else either here (we have a separate additional
domain-specific validator). We don't use OCL or Papyrus.

So I'm asking again, what about providing a UMLDiagnostician that
extends the EMF Diagnostician with the aforementioned validation of
stereotype applications?
At the moment, we duplicated that particular code in our project...


Cheers
Patrick


Am 19.05.2014 14:06, schrieb Ed Willink:
> Hi
>
> Yes ... But
>
> Unfortunately the design of Diagnostician/EValidator is not as flexible
> as some other parts of EMF.
>
> Consequently extending projects pursue nasty clone and edit policies to
> adjust behavior. No one really wants to see such horrible code made public.
>
> Papyrus and OCL have further extensions to remedy the narrow focus of
> Eclipse UML2 validation as strictly UML-as-specified rather than
> everything-in-the-UML-model. Consequently in the UML Model editor you
> need to use the OCL->Validate option to validate OCL aspects of UML.
>
> It would be great of someone had the time to analyze the diverse re-use
> difficulties and refresh the design.
>
> Regards
>
> Ed Willink
>
>
>
> On 19/05/2014 12:49, Patrick Könemann wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Just wondering - is there a reason why there is an anonymous
>> UML-specific subclass of Diagnostician hidden inside the
>> UMLActionBarContributor? Wouldn't it be reasonable to provide a public
>> UMLDiagnostician so that others can use it, too?
>>
>> Patrick
>
Previous Topic:Dangling references when creating profile
Next Topic:EMF - not possible to create a profile model
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Mar 27 08:34:47 GMT 2015

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02318 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

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