Currently EA is slightly inconsistent wrt the classes presented when extending in order to make a profile:-
1) One set of UML classes for metaclasses to create the UML profile
2) A different mechanism in Toolbox Profiles that allows reference to be made to classes within own profile (good) albeit not linked to the stereotype definitions themselves (not good)
3) A different set of UML classes for use by Quick Link (not good)
The net result is different behaviour/attributes/tagged values exposed depending on how the object is created/where it is obtained from.
For example, if I drag an object from the palette I get one of the classes defined in my profile. It therefore has the attributes etc that I've defined. If, however, it is created by Quick Link then because Quick Link cannot access my profile it creates an object of a more general UML type which although it might look the same from a stereotype perspective it doesn't have the same relationships or attributes.
It looks therefore as though I have a choice of constraining relationship choice using Quick Link but accepting that the relationship created is not (quite) the type needed or picking the correct relationship object type but risking connection to the wrong types of object.
Could very much do with consistency and also the ability to access own profile having loaded it as a MDG Technology in the new way recommended (Settings | MDG Technologies) rather than the older way via the Resources pane.
I believe the different EA functionality exposed by these 2 methods of loading a MDG Technology might amount to a bug. At the very least this isn't recognised in the documentation wrt limitations.
Having a consistent interface to one's own profile would improve consistency of modelling and the resulting UI a lot. It would probably also cut down on calls made to support
It would also be nice to be able to base a profile on something other than UML e.g. SysML.
