Quick Linker from a connector

[qwerty]

I was again tempted to play with V13 where I noticed a quick linker appearing when clicking a connector. Strange enough that, it suggests a number of connector types. Anyhow, none of them seem to be allowed. What is this? Some kind of new feature or some kind of new bug?

q.

[qwerty]

I needed to update to the latest V13. Can't wait to find out how connector/connector relations are realized where connectors in EA aren't elements. At a first guess: t_xref. 2nd place would be StyleEx.

q.

P.S. Neither. They create t_objects for the connectors with Object_Type ProxyConnector. Doesn't sound that wrong, but my gut doesn't condescend.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I needed to update to the latest V13. Can't wait to find out how connector/connector relations are realized where connectors in EA aren't elements. At a first guess: t_xref. 2nd place would be StyleEx.

q.

P.S. Neither. They create t_objects for the connectors with Object_Type ProxyConnector. Doesn't sound that wrong, but my gut doesn't condescend.

Me too...  I haven't looked at it in detail yet, but as you say, doesn't feel right.  However, given the current architecture of EA, the Sparxians probably didn't have much choice.

Paolo

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Sometime after the v13 betas, a Sparxian kindly sent me details of how to set up a ProxyConnector entry in the QuickLinker.  For the life of me, I can't find it.

Could they (or anyone who has a working example) post one or more entries?

TIA,
Paolo

[KP]

You put "link:" in front of the connector type in column A. For example "link:Dependency".

[Paolo F Cantoni]

You put "link:" in front of the connector type in column A. For example "link:Dependency".

Thanks for that, Neil. 

However, that only seems to handle relationships between arcs and vertices.  Do I do the same for Column C - for relationships between arcs and arcs?

Paolo

[Paolo F Cantoni]

You put "link:" in front of the connector type in column A. For example "link:Dependency".

Thanks for that, Neil. 

However, that only seems to handle relationships between arcs and vertices.  Do I do the same for Column C - for relationships between arcs and arcs?

Paolo

Bump! 

Also, is there any shortcut to say (for example) from any relationship to any other relationship, this relationship is allowed?

Also the value after the link: value needs to be the type of the relationship, yes?  The stereotype will provide the metatype definition.

Paolo

[KP]

However, that only seems to handle relationships between arcs and vertices.  Do I do the same for Column C - for relationships between arcs and arcs?

Yes

Also, is there any shortcut to say (for example) from any relationship to any other relationship, this relationship is allowed?

No. For diagram objects you can use @Element to include anything derived from UML::Element, i.e. everything, but link:@Element hasn't been implemented yet.  EDIT: This is for target only, not source.

Also the value after the link: value needs to be the type of the relationship, yes?  The stereotype will provide the metatype definition.

Yes. There is a list in the help.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

However, that only seems to handle relationships between arcs and vertices.  Do I do the same for Column C - for relationships between arcs and arcs?

Yes

Also, is there any shortcut to say (for example) from any relationship to any other relationship, this relationship is allowed?

No. For diagram objects you can use @Element to include anything derived from UML::Element, i.e. everything, but link:@Element hasn't been implemented yet.

Also the value after the link: value needs to be the type of the relationship, yes?  The stereotype will provide the metatype definition.

Yes. There is a list in the help.

Shouldn't there be link:@Relationship as well to allow any relationship?  (As per my original question above).  I am assuming link:@Element is used for relationships from relationships to elements - or have I misunderstood?

BTW, is @Element implemented now (v134)?  So I could set up some generic relationships?

I tried to define a derivation relationship between two InformationFlows:
link:InformationFlow,Flow,link:InformationFlow,Flow,link:InformationFlow,Flow,Abstraction,Drvtn,to,derives from,derives from,True,True,,True,ZZZZ,0,,,,,


When I try to QuickLink two such InformationFlows, nothing pops up (only the defaults).  Have I set it up correctly?

Could you supply one "you prepared earlier"    So I can check that all is OK in my MDG?

Thanks,
Paolo

[KP]

In the help for the quicklinker definition format, column C has:

You can indicate that this is a UML Metaclass or a specialization by adding the prefix '@'.

So @Element, @NamedElement, @Classifier, whatever. If the element you drag to is derived from whatever UML metaclass is named after the '@' then it's a match. And yes, this is available in the current version of EA (I think it was introduced in 13.0). It would be nice if you could do the same with connectors, e.g. link:@DirectedRelationship, but you can't yet. I don't have any information on if or when it might be added. (By the by, UML::Relationship specializes UML::Element, which is why I mentioned link:@Element, but neither is currently available, so the point is moot).

I tried to define a derivation relationship between two InformationFlows:
link:InformationFlow,Flow,link:InformationFlow,Flow,link:InformationFlow,Flow,Abstraction,Drvtn,to,derives from,derives from,True,True,,True,ZZZZ,0,,,,,


When I try to QuickLink two such InformationFlows, nothing pops up (only the defaults).  Have I set it up correctly?

Column E is missing (diagram filter). And link:InformationFlow can't work in column F which defines the target element that you create if you drag to empty space.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Ah.. The perils of "Copy and Paste"! 

Thaks for that, after I fixed it up, works a treat!

The corrected entry (to help others) is:
link:InformationFlow,Flow,link:InformationFlow,Flow,,,,Abstraction,Drvtn,to,derives from,derives from,True,True,,True,ZZZZ,0,,,,,


I did think about leaving out columns F & G, but I fgured they wouldn't hurt.  Is that correct or MUST they be empty for "Relationship to Relationship" relationships.

Paolo