Author Topic: stereotyped relationship vs meta relationship  (Read 2239 times)

qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 12333
  • Karma: +347/-287
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
stereotyped relationship vs meta relationship
« on: June 30, 2021, 05:08:27 pm »
Would there be any difference in using a meta relationship with Dependency vs. a stereotyped relationship with UML::Dependency? And if not, then why have two different connectors at all? Syntactic sugar?

q.

qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 12333
  • Karma: +347/-287
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
Re: stereotyped relationship vs meta relationship
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2021, 05:13:32 pm »
Seems I can answer myself: the UML:: variant does not seem to work. So you have to use the meta relationship.

q.

KP

  • EA Administrator
  • EA Expert
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
  • Karma: +48/-3
    • View Profile
Re: stereotyped relationship vs meta relationship
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2021, 08:28:54 am »
Yeah, one is for stereotyped connectors, one is for unstereotyped connectors. Shouldn't be too controversial IMO.
The Sparx Team
support@sparxsystems.com

qwerty

  • EA Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 12333
  • Karma: +347/-287
  • I'm no guru at all
    • View Profile
Re: stereotyped relationship vs meta relationship
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2021, 06:56:07 pm »
Depends. When you create toolbox entries you use UML::<stereo> to create unstereotyped elements/connectors by using a stereotype notation. There IS a bit of confusion. The TV for the stereotyped rel. and the meta rel. use a similar technique to define a non/stereotype. That's why my question arose initially.

q.