Sparx Systems Forum

Enterprise Architect => Suggestions and Requests => Topic started by: Paolo F Cantoni on November 30, 2006, 07:42:09 pm

Title: BUG: Keyword, keyword wherefore art thou keyword?
Post by: Paolo F Cantoni on November 30, 2006, 07:42:09 pm
If an edge has a defined UML keyword (such as an Information Flow: «flow» - see Analysis Toolbox).  If you subsequently add a stereotype, the keyword disappears.  To "get it back" you have to add an identically named stereotype - which is wrong...

UML keywords are not stereotypes.  If both a keyword and (one or more) stereotype(s) are present, then both must be visible.

The [size=13]UML 2.1 Superstructure (interim)[/size] (http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2006-04-02) Specification doesn't seem to be clear on whether they are to be rendered as:
«keyword» «stereotype, stereotype»
or as:
«keyword, stereotype, stereotype»

But I suspect the keyword should always come first.

This needs to be rectified.

Paolo
Title: Re: BUG: Keyword, keyword wherefore art thou keywo
Post by: KP on November 30, 2006, 08:07:18 pm
Quote
The [size=13]UML 2.1 Superstructure (interim)[/size] (http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2006-04-02) Specification doesn't seem to be clear on whether they are to be rendered as:
«keyword» «stereotype, stereotype»
or as:
«keyword, stereotype, stereotype»


Annex B, p717 says:

Quote
If multiple keywords and/or stereotype names apply to the same model element, they all appear between the same pair of guillemets, separated by commas
Title: Re: BUG: Keyword, keyword wherefore art thou keywo
Post by: Paolo F Cantoni on November 30, 2006, 08:31:01 pm
Thanks for that Neil, that's definitive, but not normative since it doesn't specifiy the order...

I still contend the keyword(s) should come first.

Paolo
Title: Re: BUG: Keyword, keyword wherefore art thou keywo
Post by: KP on November 30, 2006, 08:37:29 pm
Quote
Thanks for that Neil, that's definitive, but not normative since it doesn't specifiy the order...

I still contend the keyword(s) should come first.

Paolo

Totally agree!