|Re: Behaviour PC inclusion into Node PC [message #1831885 is a reply to message #1831857]
||Tue, 01 September 2020 18:51
| Stephane LACRAMPE
Registered: July 2009
First of all, you may decide to deactivate this validation rule because, in your context, you want to be able to do what you did. Validation rules can be activated/deactivated in Capella in the preference Window. I am not saying this is a good thing to do, especially that this validation rule generates an error meaning that you should avoid doing this.
Now on the reasons why this is like this, I may not have all the answers to your question, but here are a few things to consider:
- First of all, it enables you to have those elements of the same type all stored in the same place of your model (not sufficient reason on its own of course)
- I am sure you are aware that having a Behaviour PC into your Node PC as you did does not mean that your Node PC is deploying your physical component, this is another relation in Capella
- To me, one of the main reasons why Behaviour PC should stay all under the same folder is because, as you are doing System Architecture, part of your work will be to architecture your Behaviour PCs. And architecting components is done by containment in Capella. By architecting, I mean that you may group behavioral PCs together based on some architecture principles for instance.
- Also, you may reuse Behaviour PCs, so having them under on Node PC may not favor this.
More on this topic (although not 100% related to your question): https://polarsys.org/forums/index.php/t/101/
I hope this helps.
Powered by FUDForum
. Page generated in 0.01855 seconds