Virtual Connector Ends solves one problem. That showing all connectors to the exact same shape can end up complicating the diagram unnecessarily. Instead, the element is being represented by a second shape allows you to simplify one or more lines.
It's not a general attempt to represent an element multiple times. If you want to have an unconnected element shown on the diagram, drop a diagram containing that element and hide the frame.
Because they exist only to simplify the layout of the relationships, it doesn't make sense for them to ever be displayed without those relationships. So, any method that results in the shape being drawn without the line (or disconnected from the line) is the problem.
But as skiwi (and others including myself) have observed, the VCE shape can't be made to look like the original shape. Notwithstanding the original intent, the outcome is that there are multiple copies of the same element on the diagram. The consequences of that were not (apparently) thought out properly. Given that it is currently possible by two
separate methods to create an unattached duplicate shape, it is further proof that the design is
inherently flawed. I accept that others might say that Sparx can't write code that works, but in my view, this is a case of bad design.
Further, I'd submit that if you
actually asked the users, they might agree that we would see not being able to create the unattached by one of the three common methods by which connectors can be suppressed as the bug.
As I've said many times, I'm using EA in spite of EA, NOT because of it!
A slightly different design and implementation could have solved not just these problems, but many others. In the other thread, you mentioned Sparx considered creating additional diagram objects, suitably identified as VCEs, but it was rejected because of the problems it caused. I still debate that, it seems such a straightforward thing to do (and indeed, for my part, when I created my first VCE I went looking in t_diagramobjects looking for it). Could it be that another flawed design makes such a straightforward solution impractical?
Paolo
