shape scripring/eöement properties

[michael.venema]

Hi all,

a few minutes ago I sent the following feature request to Sparx:

"We designed a shape for 'business use case' via shape scripting and assigned it to a custom stereotype subclassing 'use case'. I transformed an instance of 'business use case' to a composite element. The appropriate symbol for 'composite element' - of course - is missing. We had the idea that we should find an element property we could evaluate within the script to determine if this symbol shall be drawn. However, this element property semms not to exist or not to be published resp. documented. Could Sparx please implement a feature that provides access to the 'composite element' property? Thanx, MV"

I think a feature like this might be a good idea. Midnight thinks so, too ... and others?

So long,

MV

[michael.venema]

No, this is not from mars ...

The subject, of course, is "shape scripting/element properties".

It is 9:20 am in Germany - obviously not the time of day for the precise handling of german keyboards.

[«Midnight»]

I'll second this request.

Something along the lines of an isComposite function would be welcome here.

David

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I'll second this request.

Something along the lines of an isComposite function would be welcome here.

David

But making an vertex a Composite Element in EA doesn't actually make it composite, it just attaches a diagram (according to a specified algorithm)to the vertex (as you'll see if you look in the t_object table.

Notwithstanding the new Show Composite Diagram Contents context menu item, it still doesn't actually guarantee you're going to get a composition.

My view is to separate the two concepts.

1) An (arbitrary) Diagram linked to a vertex

2) Formal specification of the Composition

Now it could be argued (and I did - with myself , that the best form of the composition specification is a Composite Structure diagram.

In that case, if the diagram being linked to is of that type, then a different Symbol (than the chain-link o-o) should be rendered.  The Chain link would merely show a linked diagram (not of type Composite Structure)

The boolean attribute isStructuredClassifier would be more in keeping with the [size=13]UML 2.1 Superstructure (interim)[/size] Specification on this topic (9. Composite Structures).  This would not necessarily require a diagram be present, but merely indicate the nature of the classifier.

A separate boolean attribute hasLinkedDiagram would indicate a linked diagram exists.  If isStructuredClassifier is true and hasLinkedDiagram is true, then the diagram MUST be a Composite Structure diagram and the content is defined to be the structure of the Classifier and would be validated for UML compliance.

Paolo

[size=0]©2006 Paolo Cantoni, -Semantica-[/size]

[«Midnight»]

Perhaps there is more to (choosing) the shape script function than meets the eye. Still, I like the idea of being able to drop a glyph - whether it's the Sparx version or user-designed - in response to the element being composite (as far as EA is concerned). One way or another we see a requirement to be able to query this within the script.

[Graham_Moir]

This gets my support!

[Hermann_Pallasch]

Hi all

Has anything happened since your posts: Will the new properties be exposed to ShapeScript? Or have they been already?

Regards
Hermann

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Bump - to raise the profile of this issue again...

The following new proposal has been added: [size=13]Attaching diagrams to elements[/size] which is related to this post.

Related posts are to be found in: [size=13]Re: shape scripting/element properties[/size], [size=13]Double-Clicking for navigation[/size] and, perhaps most tellingly in: [size=13]Re: Default Diagram[/size] and [size=13]TIP: Adding Diagram to Interface element[/size]!

[«Midnight»]

Bump - to raise the profile of this issue again...

The following new proposal has been added: [size=13]Attaching diagrams to elements[/size] which is related to this post.

Related posts are to be found in: [size=13]Re: shape scripting/element properties[/size], [size=13]Double-Clicking for navigation[/size] and, perhaps most tellingly in: [size=13]Re: Default Diagram[/size] and [size=13]TIP: Adding Diagram to Interface element[/size]!

And bump again.

I agree this is a natural fit with the references you've cited Paolo.

And high time too.

David