1. You said that QuickLinkers only accept "@" in column C, but the documentation says that Column A will accept @ as well. A mistype?
According to my understanding of how the quicklinker works the documentation is wrong. I rate my confidence as high, but not absolute.
If I put @TemplateableElement in Column A (or C), does that mean that any of it's CONCRETE metaclasses (such as Operation) will evaluate true for the QuickLinker?
For column C, yes I would expect that if the target is a concrete specialization it should show that item in the menu. Operation is a bit of an odd one because it's not a box though. I can't remember if you need to do something special to target features.
For column A, I don't think you will ever see that item represented in the quicklinker menu. If you try it and do see something let me know.
For Column H (new link metaclass), if we have a Stereotype (MyStereo) with an abstract connector metaclass (such as Realization).
Is is correct that I can put any CONCRETE metaclass in column H?
For example, if I put Substitution in Column H then this Quick Linker will create a New Connector MyStereo:Substitution. Is that correct?
I believe so. Have you tried? Seems like you could try it in as much time as it would take to write the query?
If I put Association into columns A or C, does that mean that it will also accept any of it's sub-classes?
Or does it only work with abstract metaclasses?
The feature is not restricted to abstract metaclasses. However, there is a special syntax 'link:Association' that you need to create a relationship to or from another relationship. I'm not sure how the two features combine. Again, the metamodel version will handle the combination for you.
When you say "it will be automatically expanded", I'm assuming you mean that it will include all the direct and indirect sub-classes of the abstract metaclass?
Yes, the metamodel method for defining valid links works with all direct and indirect sub-classes at either end, regardless of whether the the actual target is abstract or not.
If we look at ActionExecutionSpecification as an example, it is Abstract and the UML specification shows no direct sub-classes.
If it has no CONCRETE subclasses, what can we possibly use this metaclass for?
You probably can't use it. I'm not familiar with how that is intended to be used within UML either.
The CollaborationLink metaclass doesn't appear in the UML specification at all. Whats up with that?
From memory that's the EA connector type corresponding to communication messages. In UML 2 I think that's the same metaclass as on sequence diagrams, but my memory doesn't tell me if they were different before that.
As far as I can see, Action is listed in the UML specification as Abstract but is not shown in the "Abstract Metaclass" section in the profile helper. Once again, wassup with that?
EA allows creating an Action without specifying a type, so it's in the core elements section.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve? Are you able to point this out to me?
If you can only see it by searching the binary for specific text you're not meant to see it. It's not even there these days, having been replaced by the metamodel relationships.
PS. Best not to rely on replies by specific Sparx employees, thankfully I'm not chained to my desk handling support.
