Hi Steve,
and thanks for your answer :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Dearborn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 24. november 2000 22:06
> To: Arne G. Styve
> Subject: RE: (ROSE) Rose Fileformat (revisited...)
>
>
> I think that your answer can be found in using virtual path maps.
>
Sorry, but I don't see how. The virtual path map is related to the
"physical" path on my Hard Drive. What I was asking for is the "logical
path" (if I can call it that) stored in the modelfile, to identify in which
package of the model-tree a class is defined (re-read my previous mail...)
(the tag 'supplier').
I assume the reason for using this full "path" is to be able to have several
classes with the same name in one and the same modelfile (which there is a
need for among other things when it comes to use-cases and use-case
realizations). But still, it would have been a better solution if Rose, when
I imported a package which referenced classes found elsewhere in my
modelfile, could scan through all classes in my modelfile, trying to locate
the classes used in my imported package, and if in doubht, poped up a small
dialog which asked me to confirm if the class found was the same as the
class referenced, if you see what I mean (phu...a long sentence...).
> I find it often handy to go into the NT Registry and add my path
> maps under
> the correct place there.
>
> References are resolved using the virtual path maps AFTER you have saved
> your model. I'm thinking that this will resolve the mess you are in.
>
> Of course, you could have saved some time spending some time UP-FRONT on
> your project doing the design. This may seem obvious to you now.
>
Off course. But in this case, the "problem" ocured when moving from Rose2000
to Rose 2000e, and reverseenginering of MIDL-files. MIDL was not supported
by Rose 2000. Instead we had to import the typelibraries created by
compiling the MIDL-files. When Rose 2000e was installed, this gave us the
possibility to import MIDL-files instead of the typelibraries. We decided to
do a complete re-reverse engineering of the legacy code, to get a complete
and hopfully more correct model of the system, and then just "cut-and-paste"
the model-elements we had added in Rose 2000. At the same time we did a
small rearrangement of the model-tree, which led to this obesrvation of
mine.....
Thanks anyway :-)
Arne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arne G. Styve
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 3:40 AM
> To: rose_forum@Rational. Com
> Subject: (ROSE) Rose Fileformat (revisited...)
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I haven't given up questioning the Rose file-format yet. There are things
> still comming up when I'm working with Rose that puzzels me.
>
> Here is one example. Davyd Norris answered a previous mail from
> me, where he
> explained thet the idea behind the .MDL-format was to be able to treat the
> MDL-file as a project file consisting of several packages of
> source-code (or
> something like that).
>
> Well, I did. I needed to move som packages from one model to
> another. These
> packages contained diagrams showing classes which were located in other
> packages of the model (typically reverse-engineered or created from Rose
> (like the MFC6.0 import).
>
> Now, in my new model, I have restructured the layout of packages, so the
> MFC6.0 is not located in the same "path" (Rose Browser path not file path)
> as it was in the "old" model. That's when the trouble occurse. When adding
> the packages with the previously mentioned diagrams from the old model to
> the new, Rose is not able to locate the MFC6.0 classes used in
> the diagrams.
> This is due to the "hardcoded" path stored as attributes in the .mdl file
> (see code-extract below):
>
> .... snip ....
>
> superclasses (list inheritance_relationship_list
> (object Inheritance_Relationship
> quid "36CCD64E0278"
> supplier "Logical View::Design Model::Utilities::MFC
> 6.0::CObject
> Classes::CObject"
> quidu "365C7A6F009C"))
> operations (list Operations
> (object Operation "Close"
> quid "365C7A6F00CE"
>
> ... snip ....
>
> I.e. the 'supplier' tag creates a major problem.
>
> Is there an easy way to "update" my diagrams (i,e, the
> supplier-reference)?
> Since the classes referred to in my diagram does exist in my model, Rose
> should be able to locate them ? Or ?
>
> I know it boils down to a sound architecure and all this, but on my way to
> create this architecture, operations as the one I've perfermed is
> sometimes
> neccessary.
>
> Looking forward to any response to this query :-)
>
> Regards
>
> Arne
>
> ************************************************************************
> * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
> * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
> *
> * Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Archive of messages:
> http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
> * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *
> * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
> *
> * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * Subject:<BLANK>
> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
> *
> *************************************************************************
>
>
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
