v15 - Specialized metatypes - "Tables ain't tables"

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Still playing with specializing standard MDG items.

This time, I tried to specialize a database Table (EAUML::Table).  Seemed to work fine initially.  Here is the entry in our MDG:

Code: [Select]

<Stereotype name="Table" metatype="Database Table" notes="" cx="151" cy="80" bgcolor="16709622" fontcolor="-1" bordercolor="-1" borderwidth="-1" hideicon="0" generalizes="EAUML::Table" baseStereotypes="EAUML::Table" redefines="EAUML::Table">
<Image type="EAShapeScript 1.0" xmlns:dt="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:datatypes" dt:dt="bin.base64">UEsDBBQAAAAIAKJmOE87Vwpx/AAAAJYCAAAHABEAc3RyLmRhdFVUDQAH3RGKXd0Ril3dEYpd
rZHPSsNAEMa/awTfQfbUgBrtyVJ6MiA9KL7C0q41UE0waVTEJ/IRfDl/M208iIeCsuzOzDf/
vpktVKjXWKc6V4a80ImuFfWKHOsMdAJup+B86EpJj9wnVVroFpnUOtaR1YHW6J/U67FekK3u
1SDN6nSoA0ciWNKRHtAqMgx/8zfT2vvX2hDfoVnkTAG9Rl/yPpMRNN3FL2ERHdsy6J3T0GOk
/Duy0h22eVrnu8IKKj0vMndNrUT/G0c2Pl3QMffS51pgN+6JRAUq57vKA/cMv+3G9mG1R2Tm
HjlweP8zl9Lnq8iwLezDofx3DnN+rsGTkD9/fz9O8185bd8vUEsBAhcLFAAAAAgAomY4TztX
CnH8AAAAlgIAAAcACQAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAHN0ci5kYXRVVAUAB90Ril1QSwUGAAAAAAEA
AQA+AAAAMgEAAAAA</Image>
</Stereotype>The shapescript merely draws the native shape and overlays some stuff from the tagged value list.

So, the icon is correct, the colour is correct etc.  The overlay works.

However, when I try to connect our table to another of our tables, the PK dialog is NOT triggered.  It is only triggered if both items are EAUML::Table.  Is there something I'm missing or is it a bug?  It smells like another of those behaviours NOT triggered by the MDG metatype.

As Boss would say in the famous Castrol advertisement:  "Sol, Tables ain't tables"

TIA,
Paolo

[Eve]

I'm afraid that the behavior for the built-in data modeling stereotypes is all checked explicitly for the exact fully qualified name. You won't be able to customize them.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I'm afraid that the behaviour for the built-in data modelling stereotypes is all checked explicitly for the exact fully qualified name. You won't be able to customize them.

Is it worth a Feature request?  It seems to me that as a result of the new metamodelling technology, the base fully qualified name should be checked, rather than the specialized name.  Fairly obviously, it would greatly enhance the utility.

Paolo

[Eve]

Unfortunately it was a deliberate decision and is unlikely to change.

But make your request if it's important to you.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Unfortunately it was a deliberate decision and is unlikely to change.

But make your request if it's important to you.

Hopefully, not just to me.  I mean, it sort of makes a mockery of the new functionality.
User Thoughts?

Since this mechanism isn't available, how can I overlay the standard rendering with our own rendering shapescript?

Paolo

[Geert Bellekens]

Yeah, the tables/colums have hardcoded since the beginning.

It would be nice to be able to use the standard mechanism available to other technologies to be able to extend these stereotypes as well.

I can certainly see the utility in that.

Geert

[Eve]

it sort of makes a mockery of the new functionality.

Not sure what new functionality you're thinking of.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

it sort of makes a mockery of the new functionality.

Not sure what new functionality you're thinking of.

The metamodelling technology functionality that has been introduced (IIRC v14).  As I implied, I was expecting that if I can inherit the structural properties of EAUML::Table, I should also be able to inherit the behavioural properties of EAUML::Table.  The fact that I can't is NOT a function of any conceptual issues, but a specific decision to make things inconsistent.

Frustrated (again),
Paolo