[news.eclipse.modeling.mdt.uml2.uml] Re: creating new metaclasses

["James Bruck" <jbruck@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Rafael,

Unfortunately, you will have to either live with those warnings or
re-implement UML (or those portions you are interested in).
I should point out one more painful fact:  if the underlying implementation
of UML that you are dependent on changes, you might have problems.

Heavy-weight extensions are discouraged for these reasons ( although it
seems many people are doing it ;)   ).

An article describing all the various ways to extend UML from using keywords
to profiles to ultra-heavy weight extensions is almost complete and will be
posted soon.

Regards,

- James.



"Rafael Chaves" <chaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eo86m9$3pm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> We need to create new metaclasses to use in our UML models. After
> spending a long time looking in the archives for information on how to
> extend the UML metamodel, we figured we should use the heavyweight
> approach, because we need to generate the API for programmatically
> creating models that make use of the new action metaclasses (please
> correct me if this does not make sense).
>
> In order to do that, this is the path we took:
>
> 1) created a new custom.genmodel from the custom.uml declaring the new
> metaclasses that extend UML standard metaclasses
>
> 2) created a corresponding new custom.genmodel
>
> 3) generated code for the model
>
> However, the implementation for the API generated extends the
> implementation from the UML2 UML API. That is bad because the
> implementation classes are not API. Should we just live with all those
> "Discouraged access" warnings, or is there a cleaner way?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rafael
>
>
>
>
>