Interfaces vs «interface»Classes

[Paolo F Cantoni]

In another post, I said:

EA inconsistently has two elements named Interface.  A true UML 2 Interface and an older UML 1.x Class with stereotype «interface».  You need to decide which form you are going to use.  Mixing them is NOT recommended!

We want to use true Interfaces - and we can force this by using direct SQL queries that will convert a Class EAElement stereotyped «interface» to an Interface EAElement.

We believe that this should not affect any forward generation of code as both Classes and Interfaces invoke to the Class related portions of the Code Generation Templates.

Can anyone confirm this?

Also, we are using the CORBA IDL add-in and it applies the CORBAInterface stereotype to Classes only.   If we change this it apply to Interfaces - this should not affect anything should it?

Can anyone confirm this?

BTW: in our view, the CORBA addin XML should define the stereotype to apply to both Classes and Interfaces. (We amended ours and it now appears in both drop-downs)

TIA,
Paolo

[Paolo F Cantoni]

As I interpret the [size=13]UML 2.1 Superstructure (interim)[/size] Specification,  an Interface should be rendered with the adornment «interface» (in rectangle notation) - regardless of whether it has such a stereotype.

Thoughts?  EA doesn't, currently, behave this way.  Is it a bug?

TIA,
Paolo