|
|
|
|
| Re: UML2 4.0 and ActivityNodes [message #893226 is a reply to message #893018] |
Tue, 03 July 2012 09:35  |
 Peter Mising name
Messages: 95
Registered: July 2009 |
Member |
|
|
Hi Ed,
thanks you for the remark but I am not a OMG member.
I played a bit around with the ActivityNode topic this morning and I
think there is still something wrong.
As I understand the remark in the Migration Guide they changed the
Activity:structuredNode feature to non derived and because of that the
MDT/UML2 guys introduced Activity::ownedNode to compose nodes that are
non structured activity nodes.
So far so good. I adapted my code to use getOwnedNodes() instead of
getNodes() but when I want to remove the node from the activity with my
generic method that use
EcoreUtil.remove(node);
The node is not removed from the ownedNodes feature.
As workaround EcoreUtil.delete(node) does the job.
Greetings Peter
Am 02.07.2012 12:20, schrieb Ed Willink:
> Hi
>
> There has also been some quite intense discussion on related topics as
> part of the UML 2.5 simplification process. The draft is now available
> for review by OMG members, so if you have access you might want to also
> see whether this is an area where a problem has already been solved.
>
> Regards
>
> Ed Willink
>
>
> On 02/07/2012 10:50, Peter wrote:
>> Hi Ed,
>> mhh I found this section in the Migration Guide:
>> Changes in the revised UML 2.4.1 specification (to resolve issue
>> 16232) also required the following changes:
>>
>> -Non-compliant Activity::ownedNode and Activity::ownedGroup properties
>> were introduced to compose nodes and groups which are not structured
>> activity nodes.
>> -Serialization (and deserialization) of the Activity::group and
>> Activity::node properties were customized so that they include idref
>> attributes which reference any XMI elements (serialized for the
>> Activity::structuredNode property) representing structured activity
>> nodes composed by the activity.
>> (http://wiki.eclipse.org/MDT/UML2/UML2_4.0_Migration_Guide#XMI_Interchange)
>>
>>
>> Looks like something has changed in the Specification.
>> I look at it. Thanks!
>> Greetings
>> Peter
>>
>> Am 02.07.2012 11:13, schrieb Ed Willink:
>>> Hi Peter
>>>
>>> I think that ownership of ActiveNodes was an area where things had to be
>>> sorted out in UML 2.4.1. You probably need to do some specification
>>> study to check on the modeling intent and then some MDT/UML2 study to
>>> see whether that intent is realised.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Ed Willink
>>>
>>> On 02/07/2012 09:44, Peter wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I just tested the new Juno UML2 4.0 Release and came across something
>>>> that is curious for me.
>>>>
>>>> When I run this code snippet:
>>>> Activity act = UMLFactory.eINSTANCE.createActivity();
>>>> pack.getPackagedElements().add(act);
>>>> InitialNode initialNode = UMLFactory.eINSTANCE.createInitialNode();
>>>> --> act.getNodes().add(initialNode);
>>>> // leads to The object is not contained in a resource error during the
>>>> // save but from my perspective it is ok?!
>>>> --> initialNode.setActivity(act);
>>>> // This works fine but all my code uses the approach above.
>>>>
>>>> Am I wrong?
>>>> Greetings Peter
>>>
>>
>>
>
Am 02.07.2012 12:20, schrieb Ed Willink:
> Hi
>
> There has also been some quite intense discussion on related topics as
> part of the UML 2.5 simplification process. The draft is now available
> for review by OMG members, so if you have access you might want to also
> see whether this is an area where a problem has already been solved.
>
> Regards
>
> Ed Willink
>
>
> On 02/07/2012 10:50, Peter wrote:
>> Hi Ed,
>> mhh I found this section in the Migration Guide:
>> Changes in the revised UML 2.4.1 specification (to resolve issue
>> 16232) also required the following changes:
>>
>> -Non-compliant Activity::ownedNode and Activity::ownedGroup properties
>> were introduced to compose nodes and groups which are not structured
>> activity nodes.
>> -Serialization (and deserialization) of the Activity::group and
>> Activity::node properties were customized so that they include idref
>> attributes which reference any XMI elements (serialized for the
>> Activity::structuredNode property) representing structured activity
>> nodes composed by the activity.
>> (http://wiki.eclipse.org/MDT/UML2/UML2_4.0_Migration_Guide#XMI_Interchange)
>>
>>
>> Looks like something has changed in the Specification.
>> I look at it. Thanks!
>> Greetings
>> Peter
>>
>> Am 02.07.2012 11:13, schrieb Ed Willink:
>>> Hi Peter
>>>
>>> I think that ownership of ActiveNodes was an area where things had to be
>>> sorted out in UML 2.4.1. You probably need to do some specification
>>> study to check on the modeling intent and then some MDT/UML2 study to
>>> see whether that intent is realised.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Ed Willink
>>>
>>> On 02/07/2012 09:44, Peter wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I just tested the new Juno UML2 4.0 Release and came across something
>>>> that is curious for me.
>>>>
>>>> When I run this code snippet:
>>>> Activity act = UMLFactory.eINSTANCE.createActivity();
>>>> pack.getPackagedElements().add(act);
>>>> InitialNode initialNode = UMLFactory.eINSTANCE.createInitialNode();
>>>> --> act.getNodes().add(initialNode);
>>>> // leads to The object is not contained in a resource error during the
>>>> // save but from my perspective it is ok?!
>>>> --> initialNode.setActivity(act);
>>>> // This works fine but all my code uses the approach above.
>>>>
>>>> Am I wrong?
>>>> Greetings Peter
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02942 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
