Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] conformsTo and interfaces


Thanks, next time I'll post to the forum. Missed the link somehow but got it now. I searched on Bugzilla and find only with regards to conformsTo

However, it is resolved and does not mention realized interfaces.

Shall I add one?

Thanks for the explanation.

On 09/01/2014 20:40, Christian W. Damus wrote:
Hi, Pieter,

Questions such as this are probably better asked on the UML2 forum, where there is a wider audience that may benefit from discussion.

As far as I understand it, UML defines type conformance only in terms of the Generalization relationship between Classifiers.  InterfaceRealization is not a Generalization, but is a looser indication of the contract satisfied by a classifier, possibly with domain- or implementation-language-specific semantics assumed.

And this is certainly not the first instance in which the UML and OCL specifications diverge in their interpretation of some fairly basic concepts.  If there is a bug, it is probably in one or both of these specifications, not necessarily in the Eclipse implementation of the UML.  But that implementation could nonetheless provide some help by way of additional enhancements.  If I'm not mistaken, there is already an item in Bugzilla that deals with this very problem.  Have you searched for it?



On Jan 9, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Pieter Martin <pieter.martin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I noticed that the ClassifierImpl.conformsTo only check generals and not for realized interfaces.

from the ocl spec it says "Classes conform to superclasses and interfaces that they realize."

Is this a bug?


_______________________________________________ mailing list
_______________________________________________ mailing list

Back to the top