Difference Association with Aggregation set to "composite" vs Composition

[Martin_Bohring]

Hi people,
I need some clarification on the topic above, because I observe inconsistent behavior and need to know if it is my fault or a bug.

I work with SysML, but my question is also valid for UML.

What is the difference between:

Creating an Association and setting Aggregation to "composite" on one Ends (Showing up as Type "Association" in the connector properties) vs.
creating an Part Association (Showing up as Type "Aggregation" in the connector properties)

Besides the Target and Source being reversed (for whatever reason) there should be no difference between the two.
At least when consulting the UML 2.5.1 Spec.

But I see different behavior in what considered a part vs. an attribute in SysML BDD diagrams or SysML Par Diagrams.
So it looks like EA wants to see the type "Aggregation" in some cases, even so that is not am official UML metatype.

Either I am confused or something is really fishy here.

Any advice on that one?

[qwerty]

There is a historical list of threads about composition working "the wrong way around". You might be lucky to find it via the search. IIRC there's some option somewhere (where?) which allows to reverse the "wrong way". I'd (if ever) prefer to set the composition in the association itself.  Just don't feel dumb ;-) It's something fishy....

q.

[Martin_Bohring]

Thx for restoring my confidence