_HideUMLLinks on Connectors?

[Jayson]

Hey all

Just wondering about the _HideUMLLinks option for connectors.
This option does not appear to be available for connectors in the Profile Helpers.
Does this mean we can't suppress the UML Links for connector stereotypes the same way we can for Elements?

If not, what is the alternative?

Cheers :-)

[qwerty]

Honestly I don't know. But I would just think that connectors have ever been 2nd class citizens in EA and thus the hide was noth thought about. Likely Paolo has a more profund idea.

q.

[Jayson]

Actually, just tried to test it and realised that I cannot seem to get a Stereotyped Relationships between two Connector Stereotypes to work AT ALL, let alone get HideUmlLinks to work (XML Output shown below).

Is it actually possible to define Stereotypes relationships on Connector types?

Cheers :-)

<Stereotype notes="" name="PRC_Origin" hideicon="0" borderwidth="-1" bordercolor="-1" fontcolor="-1" bgcolor="-1" cy="0" cx="0" metatype="Origin">
    <stereotypedrelationships>
        <stereotypedrelationship constraint="PRCMDG::PRC_Composition" stereotype="PRCMDG::PRC_Generalization"/>
    </stereotypedrelationships>
    <AppliesTo>
        <Apply type="Association">
            <Property name="_lineStyle" value="orthogonalR"/>
            <Property name="_MeaningBackwards" value="Originates At"/>
            <Property name="_MeaningForwards" value="Origin Of"/>
            <Property name="direction" value="Source -> Destination"/>
        </Apply>
   </AppliesTo>

[qwerty]

I think it should since you can create connectors between connectors. You have to wait for Eve to respond.

q.

[Geert Bellekens]

Actually, just tried to test it and realised that I cannot seem to get a Stereotyped Relationships between two Connector Stereotypes to work AT ALL, let alone get HideUmlLinks to work (XML Output shown below).

Is it actually possible to define Stereotypes relationships on Connector types?

I'm not sure, never tried it but I wouldn't be too surprised if it doesn't work.
Relations to relations is a fairly new thing. Quit possible this isn't really supported in UML profiles yet.

Geert

[Modesto Vega]

Is it actually possible to define Stereotypes relationships on Connector types?

I believe it is but will try to dig out an example.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Actually, just tried to test it and realised that I cannot seem to get a Stereotyped Relationships between two Connector Stereotypes to work AT ALL, let alone get HideUmlLinks to work (XML Output shown below).

Is it actually possible to define Stereotypes relationships on Connector types?

Cheers :-)
[SNIP]

We are able to generate QuickLinker relationships between relationships.  And we have _HideUMLLinks set to true for all of them.

However, these relationships are defined in a complex hierarchy of abstract and non-abstract stereotypes, so I can't really help with the specifics of your problem.

In our case, the inter-relationship relationships are a subset of relationships between vertices.

Paolo

[Eve]

With a very quick attempt to create a profile like that I didn't get the quicklinker to work, but the constraint was used for strict connector syntax. I can't look at it any further right now, so I would recommend sending in your profile to Sparx to investigate further.

[Jayson]

Cheers Eve
What do you mean by strict connector syntax?
Also, what email address should I send the profile to?

[Eve]

The quicklinker definition from the profile constraints is almost a side-effect of defining what is legal.

If Start > Desktop > Preferences  > Links > Strict Connector Syntax is enabled, those rules are evaluated when creating a new connector.

The rules are also used in Design > Model > Manage > Validate > Validate Current Package.

https://www.sparxsystems.com/support/forms/bug_report.html

[Jayson]

Thanks Eve

I will report the bug, although to be fair the last time I did they took a looong time to respond so if you do get some time it would be appreciated if you could look at this.
Also, Paolo - any chance you can post some XML excerpt where you have gotten this to work?

Cheers :-)

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Thanks, Eve

I will report the bug, although to be fair the last time I did they took a looong time to respond so if you do get some time it would be appreciated if you could look at this.
Also, Paolo - any chance you can post some XML excerpt where you have gotten this to work?

Cheers :-)

(my emphasis)
Sorry Jays, it looks like we don't have ANY specific relationship to relationship specifications (your example) in our MDG as yet.  As I mentioned, our (working) one inherits from a generic abstract root item.

If I understand your example, you've defined the ability to create a PRC_Generalization(Generalization?) between a PRC_Origin(Association) and a PRC_Composition(of some unspecified Type - but I'd guess also Association).  Is that correct?  If not, then that may be your problem!

However, I would suggest changing the constraint to "source.metatype.both"  and seeing if you can create a relationship between two PRC_Origins.

HTH,
Paolo  (who's keenly interested in solving this for our own purposes)

[Jayson]

Hey Guys

For anyone interested, I just tried one more hail mary pass to get this to work and actually managed it.
It doesn't appear that I have done anything different other than using different types of connectors in the stereotyped relationship.

The following XML works INCLUDING the HideUMLLinks.
The only matrerial difference from last time is that this time I used plain old Associations for all three Stereotyped connectors.

Hope that helps someone SOMEWHERE out there.

Cheers :-)


<Stereotype notes="" name="PRC_SolvedBy" cy="0" cx="0" metatype="Solved By">
   <stereotypedrelationships>
      <stereotypedrelationship constraint="PRCMDG::PRC_Origin" stereotype="PRCMDG::PRC_TestConnector"/>
   </stereotypedrelationships>
   <AppliesTo>
      <Apply type="Association">
         <Property name="_lineStyle" value="orthogonalR"/>
         <Property name="_MeaningBackwards" value="Solves"/>
         <Property name="_MeaningForwards" value="Solved By"/>
         <Property name="direction" value="Source -> Destination"/>
         <Property name="_HideUmlLinks" value="True"/>
      </Apply>
   </AppliesTo>
</Stereotype>

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Hey Guys

For anyone interested, I just tried one more hail mary pass to get this to work and actually managed it.
It doesn't appear that I have done anything different other than using different types of connectors in the stereotyped relationship.

The following XML works INCLUDING the HideUMLLinks.
The only material difference from last time is that this time I used plain old Associations for all three Stereotyped connectors.

Hope that helps someone SOMEWHERE out there.

Cheers :-)

[SNIP]

(my emphasis)
Sorry, Jays,
Not quite following what you're saying.   Maybe I'm missing context and background.  I couldn't see any material difference in the two sets of XML.  Are you saying you could only get it to work if all three relationships, origin, destination and link were Associations?

If any of the three relationships are NOT the same as the others (shades of "Sesame Street") it breaks?

Paolo

[Jayson]

Yep, thats pretty much what I am saying.

I'm not saying that they ALL must be the same type or even MUST be associations.
All I know is before I was using Composition and other metatypes and it DIDN'T work.

Once I changed the example to use three Associations, it worked PERFECTLY.
So, presumably Sparx will allow stereotyped relationships for SOME metatypes and not others.

Bizarre? I think so.