Hi Chad,
to make the context feature work again, you have to add a third
parameter to createFacadeImpl() and change MetaFacadeLogic.vsl to make a
logic class pass its context to the "super_" class.
Cheers...
Matthias
> -Original Message-
> From: Chad Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Hey guys, you'll actually want to grap
Experts_only_005...I had to make another bootstrap
release because I removed the last dependency on the
metamodel entirely for MMF's that don't have direct
metaclass dependencies. So if you sync...make sure
you get Experts_only_005 bootstrap release when
buil
Hey Matthias and Wouter,
If you sync with the current MMD branch...make sure
you also get the Experts_only_004 release of the
bootstrap translator before building. All the
cartridges compile and build (except for yours Wouter,
I haven't touched it), but I still need to fix a few
issues that are d
--- Matthias Bohlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Chad,
>
> I kept the 'uml14' in the package name because the
> classes for UML 1.3
> will have different implementations. If we give them
> identical package
> names we will never be able to have them both on the
> same classpath.
> Therefor, in
Matthias,
Why do we keep the uml14 in the package name of the
common model? I think we should get rid of
that...that way we don't need the tagged value telling
the name of the interface packageas well as the
fact that we wouldn't need to create another mapping
file since every metafacade supp
Hi Chad,
I kept the 'uml14' in the package name because the classes for UML 1.3
will have different implementations. If we give them identical package
names we will never be able to have them both on the same classpath.
Therefor, in general, I think that two different classes should always
have tw
Matthias,
Why do we keep the uml14 in the package name of the
common model? I think we should get rid of
that...that way we don't need the tagged value telling
the name of the interface packageas well as the
fact that we wouldn't need to create another mapping
file since every metafacade supp
--- Matthias Bohlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, my question was: How on earth could I possibly
> model an
> association end without a type? An association end
> is connected to the
> class and cannot end "in the air"! :-)
You're right ...good point :) I wasn't thinking when
I made that fi
Well, my question was: How on earth could I possibly model an
association end without a type? An association end is connected to the
class and cannot end "in the air"! :-)
> -Original Message-
> From: Chad Brandon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:03 PM
> To: Matt
--- Matthias Bohlen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oops,
>
> does this mean that there can be association ends
> without a type? How?
Well you're supposed to have an association end
without a type, but I'd much rather have a compile
time error after generation...than a nullpointer if
the type hasn
Oops,
does this mean that there can be association ends without a type? How?
Cheers...
Matthias
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Chad Brandon
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 2:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Andromda-cvs
11 matches
Mail list logo
