[news.eclipse.modeling.mdt.uml2] Re: Missing property in UML::Class::Ker

["Kenn Hussey" <Kenn.Hussey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Marc-Florian,

Yes, it's the absence of the arrowhead that indicates that the property is 
non-navigable.

Kenn

"Marc-Florian Wendland" <florianwendland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:gemfct$h38$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Kenn and James,
>
> indeed, i'm referencing the figure 7.14 in the uml 2.1 spec. But why is 
> the owningPackage-end non-navigable? See the association between Package 
> and Type. There are no differences on the ends at Package-side, so how do 
> you see, that it is non-navigable? Or depends this on the arrow at the 
> packagedElement-end? Does that mean, that you can navigate from Package 
> only to PackageableElement but not vice versa? Because this arrow is the 
> only difference, i can recognize...
>
> Surely, if it is non-navigable, than it won't be translated into code.
>
> Thanks a lot
> Marc-Florian
>
>
> "Kenn Hussey" <Kenn.Hussey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
> news:gecvps$968$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Marc-Florian,
>>
>> Which version of the specification are you referencing, and which figure? 
>> Figure 7.14 (also mentioned by James) shows the 
>> PackageableElement::owningPackage property as being non-navigable; when 
>> this is mapped to Java, the property is lost (as are all non-navigable 
>> properties)...
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> "Marc-Florian Wendland" <florianwendland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
>> news:ge41nt$ifi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> i've found out, that the relationship between Package and 
>>> PackageableElement isn't realized with respect to the UML Superstructure 
>>> (or may be it is wanted).
>>> In the spec, there is a containent relationship between Package and 
>>> PackageableElement with both ends being navigable. See:
>>>
>>> Package:
>>>    + packagedElement : PackageableElement [0..*]
>>>
>>> PackageableElement : NamedElement
>>>    + owningPackage : Package [0..1]
>>>
>>> The first accessor was generated in the code, but the second one in 
>>> class PackageableElementImpl wasn't. Instead of, there is getOwner() : 
>>> Element method, which returns of course the owningPackage, but it is not 
>>> very precisly defined.
>>>
>>> Is this a bug or a feature :)
>>>
>>> Marc-Florian
>>>
>>
>>
>
>