[news.eclipse.modeling.m2m] [ATL] Re: Does transformation rules order ma

[jorge.manrubia@xxxxxxxxx (Jorge Manrubia)]

Hi,

Yes, that's exactly the case. We have a complex rule making use of 
elements that should be created by more simple rules. Indeed they are 
created, but are not linked with the elements created by the complex rule. 
If we put the complex rule first, it seems that primitive transformation 
target elements don't exist when it's executed, while they are properly 
created later. If we put the complex rule the last one, it works as 
expected.

We are not using "resolveTemp()". I expect that normal ATL resolve 
behaviour would resolve assigned elements (invoking the corresponding 
SOURCE to TARGET rule first) when a SOURCE element is in the right part of 
a binding.

We are very new with this engine (althought we already love it) so our 
assumptions might be totally wrong.

Thank you very much for your help

Rene Ladan wrote:

> The order of the transformation rules should indeed be indifferent
> Every functional transformation language (XSLT/ATL/...) works this way.

> Could there some dependency between them (e.g. that the complex rule
> references a resulting element from the simpler rules, either direct
> or through thisModule.resolveTemp()) ?

> Rene