RE: [mdr-users] Operation as a context of ActivityGraph

Jarda and Martin,

	It was my fault!!! Finally I found out what I was doing wrong. I was
writing (with XmiWriter) a package, and not the extent itself. For this
reason, the xmi.idref was pointing to inexistent elements (Elements that
were not inside the package but were referred by a sub-element of the
package).

	Thanks,

	Leo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaroslav Drazan [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 1:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [mdr-users] Operation as a context of ActivityGraph
> 
> Hi all,
> UML 1.5 (and less) defines context as aggregation but not composition i.e.
> it should be possible to set both - Namespace and Context and MDR
> shouldn't throw CompositionViolationException (at least in case that it is
> same in metamodel you really use). Otherway I applogize I didn't see UML
> metamodel and I thougt that context is composition (because of the
> Exception).
> 
> Regards
> Jarda
> 
> > Hello Martin,
> >
> >     It is not possible because the context is a BehaviorFeature and
> > BehaviorFeature does not extends Namespace.
> >
> >
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >
> >     Leo
> >
> > 2005/6/23, Martin Matula <[email protected]>:
> > > Set the namespace to the same value as the context.
> > > Regards,
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > Leonardo Gresta Paulino Murta wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi Jarda,
> > > >
> > > >       Thanks for the hint! However, when I do not set the namespace
> of the
> > > >ActivityGraph, the ActivityGraph is not written in XMI file. In other
> words:
> > > >I do not receive the CompositionViolationException and the generated
> XMI
> > > >file correctly has an element relating the xmiid of the Operation
> with the
> > > >xmiid of the ActivityGraph, but the ActivityGraph itself is not
> there...
> > > >
> > > >       The attached file (test.xml) is the generated XMI file. It is
> using
> > > >SPEM metamodel, but SPEM is derived from UML metamodel. The element
> > > >"SPEM:A_behavior_contex" relates a WorkDefinition, which extends
> Operation,
> > > >with an ActivityGraph (xmi.idref = "a7"). However, the ActivityGraph
> itself
> > > >(xmiid = "a7") is not there! Do you have any other hints?
> > > >
> > > >       Thanks a lot!!!
> > > >
> > > >       Leo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>From: Jaroslav Drazan [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > >>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:33 AM
> > > >>To: [email protected]
> > > >>Subject: Re: [mdr-users] Operation as a context of ActivityGraph
> > > >>
> > > >>Hello Leo,
> > > >>You can't set the composition more than once. That's the reason why
> all
> > > >>compositions defined by UML (ModelElement in Namespace, Feature in
> > > >>Classifier...) are optional (multiplicity is 0..1). So if you want
> to
> > > >>specify ActivityGraph for some BehaviorFeature you mustn't specify
> its
> > > >>namespace (if it has been already set you must first set it to
> null).
> > > >>
> > > >>Regards
> > > >>Jarda
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Hello,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>     I am using UML metamodel and trying to set the context of an
> > > >>>ActivityGraph to an Operation. The specification says the context
> of an
> > > >>>ActivityGraph may be a BehavioralFeature. Moreover, Operation
> inherits
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>from
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>BehavioralFeature. However, a CompositionViolationException is
> thrown.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>It
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>complains that I am trying to set more than one context to the
> > > >>>ActivityGraph. I suppose it considers the namespace where the
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>ActivityGraph
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>is inserted as an existing context. Am I doing something wrong?
> What is
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>the
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>correct way to set the context of an ActivityGraph to an Operation?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>Where
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>should I insert the ActivityGraph to avoid the
> > > >>>CompositionViolationException?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>     Thanks,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>     Leo
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>____________________________________________________________
> > > >>http://www.listicka.cz
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> http://www.listicka.cz