OK, I'll file a bug report. Thanks for your support.
Javier On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 03:01 -0400, Tom Morris wrote: > OK, the screen capture makes it clearer what you are trying to do. I didn't > understand that you were making an association between classes which were in > two different packages. That wasn't the case I tested. > > The association is being put in the closest common namespace (package in > this case). I thought that the rules would be less strict for non-navigable > association ends, but I don't see the behavior changing in this case. I'd > need to double check the well formedness rules in the UML 1.4 spec, but I > suspect they are what's driving this behavior. Or it could just be a > misintepretation of those rules... > > Why don't you file a bug report so that it doesn't fall through the cracks? > I'm not 100% sure what the correct behavior is off the top of my head and > don't have time to check right now. > > Tom > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
