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