_HideUMLLinks on Connectors?

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Yep, thats pretty much what I am saying.

I'm not saying that they ALL must be the same type or even MUST be associations.
All I know is before I was using Composition and other metatypes and it DIDN'T work.

Once I changed the example to use three Associations, it worked PERFECTLY.
So, presumably, Sparx will allow stereotyped relationships for SOME metatypes and not others.

Bizarre? I think so.

If it is true, then it's a defect.  As I said, we inherit a pile of relationships from our abstract root node.  We have observed (excluding some anomalies - which we're investigating - so far we've found they relate to issues with our inheritance hierarchy, not the technology) that the QuickLinker results are consistent and independent of the underlying types of the relationships.

Perhaps Eve can comment?

Paolo

[Eve]

Sorry, priorities are elsewhere at the moment.

I'm going to throw out an educated guess that extending Composition is the problem. Association is the correct metaclass from a UML point of view, the connector type in EA is still Aggregation.

[Geert Bellekens]

Sorry, priorities are elsewhere at the moment.

I'm going to throw out an educated guess that extending Composition is the problem. Association is the correct metaclass from a UML point of view, the connector type in EA is still Aggregation.

I think it's about time EA got rid of the Aggregation connectortype all together.
It has been an annoyance since forever.
We try to educate people to only use associations, and set the AggregationKind to Shared or Composite if needed.

Geert

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Sorry, priorities are elsewhere at the moment.

I'm going to throw out an educated guess that extending Composition is the problem. Association is the correct metaclass from a UML point of view, the connector type in EA is still Aggregation.

I think it's about time EA got rid of the Aggregation connector type all together.
It has been an annoyance since forever.
We try to educate people to only use associations and set the AggregationKind to Shared or Composite if needed.

Geert

As do we...

Paolo

[qwerty]

I think it's about time EA got rid of the Aggregation connectortype all together.

They never get rid of anything. They just put it elsewhere (or Ex-where if you look into the DB tables). Probably you can still generalise...

q.

[Jayson]

Pardon my ignorance guys, but what's the problem with aggregation connectors?
Also, why should they be conceptually different from any other connector?
I figured in Sparx the only difference between connectors is the associated Shape Script.

[Geert Bellekens]

Pardon my ignorance guys, but what's the problem with aggregation connectors?
Also, why should they be conceptually different from any other connector?
I figured in Sparx the only difference between connectors is the associated Shape Script.

The problem is that there are two ways to create a composition or aggregation.

You can use a connector of type Aggregation, or a connector of type Association. the Aggregation type is a reminiscence of the UML 1.0 days.
Later versions of UML only use Associations with the AggregationKind property that can be None, Shared or Composite.
So if you now want to count all associations you have to check both type Association as type Aggregation.

Geert