Book a Demo

Author Topic: Structural Diagram: Compose Rel. Wrong Direction?  (Read 2766 times)

hglathe

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Structural Diagram: Compose Rel. Wrong Direction?
« on: May 04, 2012, 01:08:45 am »
Hello,

I've created two classes C1 and C2 in a simple UML class diagram using EA 9.2.*.
After this, I wanted to create a composition relationship between these two classes. C1 should be the source and C2 the target. I started drawing the composition relationship beginning from C1 and released the mouse button over C2. The result is, that the source and target will be stated correctly in the relationship properties but the drawing of the relationship in the diagram is not correct. The filled composition square end which must be at the source end is placed on the target end side.

Does anyone have the same problem? I'm using EA version 9.2.

Thanks in advance, Helko

hglathe

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structural Diagram: Compose Rel. Wrong Directi
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2012, 01:38:27 am »
Oh, my fault.

Under Tools/Options/Links I can select 'Draw Aggregations Reversed'.

Best regards, Helko

hglathe

  • EA Novice
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structural Diagram: Compose Rel. Wrong Directi
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2012, 06:54:57 pm »
It was not my fault.

If I activate 'Draw Aggregations Reversed' the route end will be drawn where I start drawing the association, but the roles for source and target will also be switched. Thus, the problem is still present.

Makulik

  • EA User
  • **
  • Posts: 400
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Structural Diagram: Compose Rel. Wrong Directi
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2012, 07:40:21 pm »
Hi,

I can remember some long ongoing discussions here about this topic stating EA does this wrong. AFAIR the result was that EA introduced the 'Draw Aggregations Reversed' option, but the source / target roles where left as they ever were.
Seems to be a matter of interpretation up to some point. I guess they won't accept this as a bug.

Best regards,
Günther