Author Topic: Model Transformation Problems  (Read 1657 times)

olafk

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Model Transformation Problems
« on: January 03, 2006, 09:44:40 pm »
Hi all.

I am having a number of issues with model transformations; maybe somebody could venture comments / help?



The transformation auto-generates a diagram - which is re-generated / re-layout during each and every subsequent diagram. As the layout is more than atrocious (I don't think it could do any better), it makes the diagram kind-a useless.

But I'd like to further develop the resulting diagram - i.e. adding additional classes etc. - and have it not destroyed on every subsequent transformation.

Now, creating an additional diagram (using a different name but in the same package) seemed like an idea. But wasn't :( as any diagram in the transformation target package is re-layout along with the "primary" one.

So, here's the question: Can I prevent such auto-layout on transformation or, even at all times? Can this be found in the transformation templates?



When an association (of multiplicity > 1) is ordered, such ordering constraint does not appear in the transformed model. However, it transforms with the following intermediate code - showing, correctly, the ordering constraint:
Code: [Select]

     Target
     {
     XRef{namespace="DesignModel" name="Class" source="{FCBB24B1-BA78-4a1a-8642-F30F76B08147}"}
     access="Public"
     ordered="1"
     role="servicePath"
     multiplicity="2..*"
     aggregation="0"
     notes=""
     containment="Unspecified"
     scope=""
     }

Has anybody seen this? Is this a bug? Is this dependent on anything else (all I have spec'ed at present is: one-directional, cardinality on both ends, composite aggregation on the non-ordered / other end...)?



It seems that association classes aren't transformed correctly... Or, more precisely, the association class morphs into a stand-alone class, the association itself turns into a plain-vanilla association. Anybody can confirm this? Is this a bug?



Any help appreciated... cheers.
-olaf