QuickLinker Groups

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Hi,

I have got (at least some of) the hang of the QuickLinker.  I can get it to create menu groups when creating a new object by dragging from an existing object.  However, I can't get it to create the same groups when dragging between existing objects.  Am I missing something?

TIA,
Paolo

[RoyC]

Would you need a menu group? Dragging from an element into space creates an element (so a menu of possible element types) AND a connector (so a menu of connectors for each type of element). But dragging between two existing elements creates just a connector, so you would have only one menu (of possible connectors).

But I'm just talking off the top of my head, so there is every possibility that I am missing something!

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Would you need a menu group? Dragging from an element into space creates an element (so a menu of possible element types) AND a connector (so a menu of connectors for each type of element). But dragging between two existing elements creates just a connector, so you would have only one menu (of possible connectors).

But I'm just talking off the top of my head, so there is every possibility that I am missing something!

I was previously told that the number of QuickLinker entries could (effectively) be unlimited.  So I let it go to my head!  For some types of objects, I've got tens (perhaps approaching hundreds) of connectors - each supplying a particular semantic.  The list overflows the page (on right click).  I want to group them in the same way that the creation allows me to group them...
I'm creating very semantically rich models.

Paolo
Consistency... (etc.)

[Eve]

The fact that you're not going to hit the limits of the technology doesn't necessarily imply that you're not going to hit the limits for practical use.

Without looking at the code it makes sense to me that the grouping would be for creating elements. In that case you are making two decisions. The relationship type and element type. (Although the order isn't specified) If you need an extra set of grouping when dragging to a specific element it's rational to believe you would want two layers when dragging to blank space. (If that was available would you then want two layers when dragging to a single item)

In my opinion if you're hitting useability limits then you're going beyond how it was intended to be used. You may be better off with a smaller list and then assigning a stereotype as needed.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

The fact that you're not going to hit the limits of the technology doesn't necessarily imply that you're not going to hit the limits for practical use.

Agreed, but wait there's more...  

Without looking at the code it makes sense to me that the grouping would be for creating elements. In that case you are making two decisions.

Actually, I'm making one decision -what is the semantic relationship between these two elements?  As a consequence I set the:

The relationship type and element type. (Although the order isn't specified) If you need an extra set of grouping when dragging to a specific element it's rational to believe you would want two layers when dragging to blank space. (If that was available would you then want two layers when dragging to a single item)

The grouping function in the QuickLinker specification groups items - that's true regardless of the numbers.  I want to group for semantic clarity, I could put up with the non-grouping when I only had a small number but now I've got a large enough number of items that my efficiency is impacted.

In my opinion if you're hitting useability limits then you're going beyond how it was intended to be used. You may be better off with a smaller list and then assigning a stereotype as needed.

The useability limits are imposed by the inconsistent design NOT by the number of items.  I have the same number of items involved if I'm dragging into an open space as onto another diagram object.  I just can't separate/group them as well.

Paolo