Hi,
Indeed, the significance of the ConnectorEnd is that it has not only a reference to the Port that it connects (via the ‘role’ attribute) but optionally also a part that presents this port “on the outside” in the case of connection to a port on a part (the ‘partWithPort’) attribute. So, a port P “on the inside” of a capsule C is the same element (strictly speaking in the UML structure) as the port P “on the outside” of a part of type C, but the port isn’t enough to understand the meaning in the second case without also the part-with-port.
So, the different visualization that I proposed initially for the two presentations of the same port element distinguishes this nuance of the part-with-port. Does that strengthen the case for RoseRT-ish colouring over RSARTE-ish colouring? cW On 30 November, 2016 at 11:42:04, Ernesto Posse (eposse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
Hi,
[epp] It sounds that your definition of "port on the outside",
i.e. "port role" in RoseRT corresponds to a UML ConnectorEnd.
Although, a "port on the inside", that is, the port as defined in
the capsule, also has a ConnectorEnd, when the port is a relay
port.
[epp] I think this is a bit confusing. Unless I completely
misunderstood your definitions of "on the inside" and "on the
outside". The port-on-a-part ("on the outside") cannot be the exact
same object as the port in its definition context (the capsule that
owns the port, "on the inside"), because the capsule that owns the
port can be used in several different contexts: If we have capsule
A with port p, we can have capsule B with part a:A and capsule C
with part a:A as well, but then the occurrence of A.p in B is
B.a.p, is definitely not the same as the occurrence of A.p in C,
that is, C.a.p. As I understand it, the A.p is the port "on the
inside" while B.a.p and C.a.p are the ports "on the outside". Of
course, you can click on any these and they show the same contents
and you can edit their properties, but they are not the exact same
object. Strictly speaking, when the port occurs in a context (on
the outside), what you get in the UML model is a ConnectorEnd with
a reference (called "role" in UML) to the actual UML Port that it
represents, i.e. the port in its definition context
(inside).
[epp] I am not proposing to change the UML 2 meta-model, and I
cannot do it, anyway. I'm just stating that the meta-model already
is like what you are describing with RoseRT. I may be
misunderstanding things here as well, but to me, it looks like a
ConnectorEnd is the same as a "port role". If not, what is the
difference?
_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev
_______________________________________________
papyrus-rt-dev mailing list
papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev
|