Barker Models in Forward Engineering: Supertypes aren't generated

Hi,
System: PD 16.1 with the latest EBF.
For construction of conceptual models I preferably use Barker Notation. When I create a physical model based upon a Barker notated model, Supertypes aren't generated. I dont have the opportunity to check the "generate option" within a Supertype, because it's automatically deactivated. Why are Supertypes not generated in physcial models but only the last Suptypes in an inheritance hierarchy?
Best
Stephan

Take a look here
Inheritances (CDM/LDM)
Note: There is no separate inheritance object in the Barker notation (see Supported CDM/LDM Notations), as inheritances are represented by placing one entity symbol on top of another. Barker inheritances are always complete and mutually exclusive, and the supertype lists its subtypes on the Subtypes tab (see Entity Properties). Only leaf subtypes can be generated as PDM tables, and the Generate option is disabled on Barker supertype property sheets.

Similar Messages

  • Enhancement request:: Add audit columns during forward engineering

    How about adding a check box on forward engineering to add standard audit columns to all tables being engineered?
    User Created
    User Modified
    Date Created
    Date Modified
    We can do it today using the table template transformation but that is a manual step you have to execute after forward engineering new entities. (works well but a bit annoying to do over and over again in an iterative design approach)
    So you could basically just add the option to automatically use a template table and the current script. You might also deliver a default template table that the user can modify perhaps (then they can apply their own naming standards to the columns).
    Thanks

    Dear Kent,
    Your request will be a nice to have, I had the same need and used the table template transformation approach.
    How about allow to define Scripts in entity properties for logical model (as already exists in the table properties for relational model) that is applied when being engineering to relational. This allows to define different "templates" to apply according each entity (audit columns in transactional entities, versioning/history columns in content entities, etc. ).
    I use similar approach in the relational to DDL step using the table scripts (before create, after create,etc.) .
    Because we use an internal data dictionary framework, each table that is added need to be categorized before to be possible to create the object.
    So, this feature allow me to add in each table properties a Script "Before Creation" where an anonymous PL/SQL block is used invoke the method with classification and set this script to "Include into DDL script".Making the use of "dynamic properties", we dynamically define certain properties of categorization that will be used in the creation of script.
    So I think that the enhancement of scripts in entities + dynamic Properties (already existing) will be a interesting mix for DM empowerment.
    Thanks

  • Forward engineering options for type hierarchies

    Hello,
    I'm using Data Modeler 3.0.0-665.
    I have models which use type hierarchies with more than 2 levels. I'm having dificulty forward engineering into tables.
    For example I have the following entity hierarchy:
    ent1
    ent21
    ent211
    ent212ent22
    ent221
    ent222
    I would like to enginer tables as follows:
    - ent21 and its sub-types implemented as single table
    - ent22 and its sub-types implemented as sub-type implementation (table per child)
    What seems to happen in Data Modeler is that the Forward Engineer Strategy property is set once only for the entire hierarchy. So I cannot engineer two sub-types with different engineering strategies.
    I also was unable to engineer only children of ent21 even though I had de-selected the children of ent22.
    Is there a way to make Data Modeler implement sub-types using different strategies within the hierarchy?
    Thank you,
    Beatriz.

    Hello Phillip,
    Thank you.
    Given your answer, I have these questions:
    1. is there a plan to include this capability in a future release?
    2. If the answer to (1) above is No, then is there are place where I can request this as an enhancement? if so could you please point me to it?
    This functionality is available in Oracle Designer and we actually do use it a lot as we have models with complex type hierarchies.
    Thank you,
    Beatriz.

  • UML modeling by reverse-engineering a JAVA project

    I can't seem to get over a basic hurdle to get started with UML modeling. I open an existing JAVA project. I then start a new project and choose "UML" and "-Platform model by reverse-engineering a JAVA project". Next I give the UML project a name and try to open my existing JAVA project. But the wizard does not show any project!
    Appreciate your help.
    Phil

    UML in JSE8 can reverse engineer all 4 built-in types of Java project defined in IDE. To prove that, I just downloaded apache ant source 1.6.5 from http://ant.apache.org/srcdownload.cgi and successfully reverse engineered it with JSE8.
    If you have a project with existing ant script , it's extremely easy, you absolutely don't need to hand-create a java project from scratch to specify source, library dependency etc. Just follow the wizard "create a Java project with existing ant script" to specify your Java project location, the ant script location, and * don't forget * to specify the source location. Any project without source folder specified is not considered a valid candidate for Reverse Engineer, and you won't see it listed under the project chooser in UML wizard when trying to associate the current UML project with a Java project. Please right click to bring up your source project properties to verify if you have source package folder correctly spelled out.
    It IS a supported feature, do let us know if you still have troubles to RE your project.

  • [Data Modeler] FK aren't generated

    Hello !
    When I export my model to DDL PK and Unique constraint are exported correctly, but Data Modeler generate only indexes on FK and don't generate FK constraints itself.
    But i've the last version of Oracle SQL Data Modeler, i'v checked the checkbox to generate FK, and I can't get theses constraints in DDL export.
    Have you an idea for solving this problem ?
    Benjamin Regnier

    In the Preferences there is an option to to not create indexes on FK.

  • UML Modeling: Round Trip Engineering

    Hi!
    Yesterday I worked through and tested the UML Modeling: Developing Applications tutorial. Everything worked awsome and I managed to complete step in the tutorial.
    Today, when I started the studio and wanted to play a little more with Round Trip Engineering I found something strange.
    If I add an operation to the java-source using the source editor it do not show up in the UML class diagram but if I add an operation to the UML class diagram it shows up in the java-source.
    Is it me that is doing anything wrong?
    Is this a known issue/bug?
    Win XP Professional
    Java Studio Enterprise 8 with latest update today.
    Sincerely,
    // Paul

    Paul,
    Glad to hear you like the UML tool. Not sure which release/version you are working with so I'll try to cover all the bases hear.
    The UML module was released with the Enterprise Pack (early access version I believe), the live roundtrip was still enabled. Then we pulled UML module out of the Enterprise Pack because we needed to do some overhauling of the roundtrip feature and we didn't want to prevent Enterprise Pack from going beta, so now UML is available via the beta update center. This version of UML has the live roundtrip disabled so that code is not generated with every model manipulation and the model is not updated with every source edit. It sounds like this is the version you are working with.
    There is a strange scenario where the live roundtrip is unintentionally enabled (live roundtrip should never be enabled... ever - this is not your fault). A bug was filed and I fixed it, but the fix was integrated into a different branch than the one available via the update center. This is because we are about to release Java Studio Enterprise 8.1 and so we did all the bug fixing on that branch and all those fixes will be merged with the UML that is on the update center, probably in the next week or two, but a date has not been decided, yet.
    In summary, rest assured that the issue (and many many others) have been addressed, and those fixes will be merged into the version available on the update center very soon.
    Please keep the feedback coming on reverse engineering and code generation as we are rebuilding these features from scratch for NetBeans 6.
    thanks
    craig

  • Adding a Glossary blocks forward engineering (blocking issue)

    I made my glossary with DM3 glossary editor.
    I changed Preferences \ Data Modeler \ Naming Standard \ Glossary listbox, added my glossary here.
    Now, the button Forward Engineer >> does not works anymore. It should open a windows to control the forward process. nothing happens.
    If I come back to the preferences and delete my glossary from the list, the button works again.
    From the log:
    *2011-05-24 10:25:30,341 [AWT-EventQueue-0] ERROR MDBAction - java.lang.NullPointerException*
    Why DM does not communicate a specific problem inside the glossary? How do I debug this case?
    Edited by: T. on May 24, 2011 1:26 AM
    Edited by: T. on May 24, 2011 4:29 AM

    I've found similiarity with this one: Re: Engineer to Relational does nothing DM3 Production
    In DM3, "Incomplete modifiers" kills the forward button without notice.
    You have to avoid that option forever, and in turn you can never benefit from a partial translation during forward. A full, complete, comprehensive glossary is hard to achieve...

  • Analysis, Design model, round-trip engineering

    ok, here's the point.
    We work with the problem domain and develop the analysis model. The analyst at this stage doesn't concern himself with the implementation details, some low-level code patterns and the programming language (well, let's forget for now about C's multiple inheritance and Java's workaround for it). So, when most of the analysis work is done, we end up with major classes (populated only with some basic attribs & behaviour; then, we have a high-level representation of business processes and corresponding activity diagrams. Of course, this model will be refined at a later stage, but for now it will do.
    Say, we have the model in a project. Now we move to the design level. More and more details are added to the model, sequence/collaboration diagrams are added, we concern ourselves much more with the detailed class behaviour.
    And here's the first question. Should we leave the original high-level diagrams intact and produce separate detailed ones? Generally, they represent the same process, but at a more detailed level. What about duplication of diagrams? Or should we elaborate the existing ones (but then we lose the clear and simple bird-eye view of the problem domain).
    After that, we make a decision to implement the system as a set of EJB's. So, we've switch to component modeling at system design. UML model for these components differs quite a lot from a traditional one, so it can be quite painful to refactor the existing interaction diagrams. But do we need to do it? I agree that having <<EJBImplementation>>, <<EJBRealization>> , etc stereotypes displayed in the analysis model is not a nice solution.
    Another question - is it a good idea to start a separate project for system design and just import/copy the required pieces from a higher-level design model? Or can we get away with combining all stages in one project file?
    Please, read all of the above in the light of round-trip engineering. So, finishing after analysis stage, is not an option, but to lead the whole project to as low level as implementation details.
    I'd like to hear from you, some hands-on experience with similar projects, your approaches. Feel free to comment on the flow of events.
    Best regards,
    Andrew

    ok, here's the point.
    We work with the problem domain and develop the
    analysis model. The analyst at this stage doesn't
    concern himself with the implementation details, some
    low-level code patterns and the programming language
    (well, let's forget for now about C's multiple
    inheritance and Java's workaround for it). So, when
    most of the analysis work is done, we end up with
    major classes (populated only with some basic
    attribs & behaviour; then, we have a high-level
    representation of business processes and corresponding
    activity diagrams. Of course, this model will be
    refined at a later stage, but for now it will do.
    Say, we have the model in a project. Now we move to
    the design level. More and more details are added to
    the model, sequence/collaboration diagrams are added,
    we concern ourselves much more with the detailed class
    behaviour.
    And here's the first question. Should we leave the
    original high-level diagrams intact and produce
    separate detailed ones? Generally, they represent the
    same process, but at a more detailed level. What about
    duplication of diagrams? Or should we elaborate the
    existing ones (but then we lose the clear and simple
    bird-eye view of the problem domain).Depends on whether you are concerned about the abstract methodology or more concerned about the implementation methodology.
    For full process control, on a large project, you will have a architecture design which will always reflect the target system but has little to do with the implementation design. If the architecture needs to change it means something was "wrong" with it (which could come about due to a change order or a refinement of the specification of the system.) There might be other associated high level documents which occupy the same level - such as the project plan. This would typically be the project initiation phase which occurs before software design starts.
    Of course you would keep all of the documents. Just as naturally each version would be checked into the version control system.
    >
    After that, we make a decision to implement the system
    as a set of EJB's. So, we've switch to component
    modeling at system design. UML model for these
    components differs quite a lot from a traditional one,
    so it can be quite painful to refactor the existing
    interaction diagrams. But do we need to do it? I agree
    that having <<EJBImplementation>>, <<EJBRealization>>
    , etc stereotypes displayed in the analysis model is
    not a nice solution.I doubt that any reasonable system is going to make the decision to use J2EE in the system design process. That is always going to be a architecture or requirements decision (even if it is implicit.) If not then it suggests that there are probably at least three levels to the design process and the J2EE decision is in the top most layer (maybe there is a "high" and "low" level architecture process.) And architecture design must describe why J2EE was choosen and what if any alternatives were considered.
    Again this document will be retained (and checked into version control.)
    >
    Another question - is it a good idea to start a
    separate project for system design and just
    import/copy the required pieces from a higher-level
    design model? Or can we get away with combining all
    stages in one project file?
    In the abstract yes.
    Why? Because in an ideal design environment, a "high" (system) level design is created by a small very experienced set of developers. Then it is handed off to many junior developers for "low" (detailed) design. That doesn't work if you are using the "same" design. This is only somewhat mitigated by design tools that somewhat support this process (or least last time I checked they didn't support it very well.)
    Keep in mind that this is the ideal, and it is unlikely (probability wise) that you are working at or with a company where doing this is feasible much less encouraged.
    Please, read all of the above in the light of
    round-trip engineering. So, finishing after analysis
    stage, is not an option, but to lead the whole project
    to as low level as implementation details.
    Round trip. You start with the documents that have been checked in. You branch the version control tree or just up the version numbers of the docs (depending on how "deliverables" are being handled) and start over.

  • Safari google search engine suggestions aren't working.

    I have gone through the Safari app, everything that needs to be turned on is on.  Including 'search engine suggestions', 'preload top hit', and 'spotlight suggestions'.  I have tried many things to fix the problem.  Restart phone.  Turn off all suggestions, restart phone.  Turn everything back on, restart phone. I have even done a complete reset.  NOTHING is working.
    I have another iphone 6 and it is working on that phone.  Additionally, if I start searching something on the other phone that works, I see different things pop up, like map suggestions, all search engine suggestions, and prior websites with the words I'm typing.  None of this shows up on my iphone. 

    Exact same problem on my iPhone 6 with iOS 8.0.  Hasn't worked since I activated the phone last week.  Played with all previously mentioned settings.  Changing search engine doesn't help either.  Reset network settings...no good.
    Interestingly, it doesn't work on my iPhone 5 with iOS 8.0 either.  However, it does work on my iPad Mini on iOS 8.0 - same WiFi network.
    Not much of a pattern here.  Probably just need to wait for an update release.

  • Data Modeler: How to prevent auto surrogate key in supertype/subtypes?

    When forward engineering supertype/subtypes, how can I prevent the automatic creation of a surrogate key (propagated to all super/subs)? Data Modeler creates this SK only at the relational level. I have already defined a surrogate identifier in the logical; the intent is to engineer this to the relational model and propagate to each subtype.
    Thanks,
    Patrick

    Thank you Philip for the explanation. I'd like to dig into this a little deeper, as I may be misinterpreting your explanation, and especially the last bit ( "...but foreign keys from subtype table to super-type table are not created" ).
    My preferred super/subtype implementation consists of a supertype parent table (ideally with a [manually created] discriminator code value) and any number of subtype child tables, all referencing the parent (via FK column/RI). Note that RI is from the supertype/parent to each subtype/child table, not the other way round as Designer docs suggest (one of three different approaches: all-inclusive single-table, detail tables only, master/detail w/ RI from child to parent [arced]). The implementation I suggest ("the fourth way") allows the painless addition of a new subtype simply by creating a new child table and a new discriminator value for the parent. I've had consistent success using this approach with Designer for many years.
    I've verified this successfully with a bare bones logical (3 levels), with appropriate UID on supertype/parent. All seems to transform well to relational model (i.e., all tables have inherited the parent PK, and individual attributes transformed to columns in the appropriate tables). The transform did not include a SurrogateID column.
    However, the transform doesn't work quite so well in my full-blown Party model, even though I ensured that a UID was defined on the logical supertype/parent. also confirmed that Hierarchy relationships are defined between supertypes and subtypes. What else could I be doing wrong that causes the transform to create a SurrogateID column on each super/subtype table?
    And on a similar note: are you suggesting that SQLDev Modeler transforms a supertype/subtype hierarchy with RI from detail tables to the parent table (i.e., backwards) when selecting "Table for each entity"? This approach would require a new FK column added to the parent table whenever a new subtype table was required.

  • Fwd engineering entity name changes to relational model?

    I changed an entity name in my logical model after generating a relational model. But, I cannot figure out how to have SDDM (3.0.0.665) propagate this change to the relational model.
    In the Engineer To Relational Model screen, if I select the changed entity from the tree view, in the Details pane there is a "Selected" check box next to the Name property (this line shows the discrepancy between logical name and relational name) but I can't check it. Under the Compare/Copy Options tab in that same dialog, the check box next to Name is checked. But, when I forward engineer the name is not changed.

    BTW I just noticed that if I enable "Name Translation" then it seems to work. This is not at all intuitive or obvious, nor does it seem to be explained in the documentation.
    According to the help:
    Apply Name Translation: Controls whether formal names are translated to abbreviated names when the logical model is forward engineered to a relational model, and whether abbreviated names are translated to format names when a relational model is reverse engineered to the logical model. Name translation is applied only for valid names. In addition, translations between the words entity/attribute/key and table/column/index are performed.

  • Sql datamodeler: Engineer to relational model: General Options

    Hello
    When you engineer your logical model to a relational model you get a wizard. In lower part of this wizard byou have several tabs, one of the tabs is called general.
    On this general tab you have check box: Apply Name Translation
    The corresponding help text:
    Apply Name Translation: Controls whether formal names are translated to abbreviated names when the logical model is forward engineered to a relational model, and whether abbreviated names are translated to format names when a relational model is reverse engineered to the logical model. Name translation is applied only for valid names. In addition, translations between the words entity/attribute/key and table/column/index are performed.
    Does anybody have a clue what is meant here?
    Regards Erik

    Erik,
    you have to create glossary (tools>Glossary editor) with words permitted for usage in names in logical model. For each word you can define abbreviation that will be used in transformation process.
    Example:
    Employee - EMP
    Salary - SAL
    Attribute "Employee Salary" will be transformed to column "EMP_SAL".
    You can define preferred abbreviation for entities and attributes and it can be used instead of glossary definitions.
    You also have to set your glossary in "Tools>General Options>Naming standards>Glossary"
    Best regards,
    Philip

  • How to join two parallel identifying relationships?

    I have four entities A, B, C and D with the following identifying relationships:
    A <-- B
    A <-- C
    B <-- D
    C <-- D
    A has a single primary key AID. B and C have their own primary keys BID and CID and primary foreign keys to the primary key of A. So the primary keys of B and C are (BID, AID) and (CID, AID). D has his own primary key DID and the primary foreign keys to B and C. So the primary key of D is (DID, (BID, AID), (CID, AID)). As you can see the primary key of A occurs twice in the primary key of D, because of the two parallel identifying relationships.
    Now I want the two AIDs in the primary key of D to be identical. The primary key of D should be a four tuple (DID, BID, CID, AID).
    How can I express this in the logical model of the Data Modeler?
    What I tried so far: I engineered the logical model into a physical model and changed there one of the parallel relationships. I changed the associated child column of the redundant AID reference to the other one. After that Data Modeler asked me to remove the automatically created column, which does not have a reference any more. This seems to be a solution for the physical model.
    But: it seems to be neither possible to model this in the logical model directly nor is possible engineer the changes from the physical model back to the logical mode.
    So what can I do?
    I asked this question with some more concrete variable names at stackoverflow:
    http://stackoverflow.com/q/13027950/402322
    And this is the physical model after the modification explained above:
    https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/TCeW1Si0UOybltn34oIWj9MTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0

    Hi,
    you need to play with overlapping/folding attributes. Open properties dialog of entity D, go to "Overlapping attributes" page - you should see aid-aid1 pair listed. Check "fold" check box. Aid1 attribute will remain in entity but there will be no related column in relational model after forward engineering to it. You can change your decision during forward engineering - Data Modeler detects existence of overlapping keys and position engineering dialog on related tab.
    Philip

  • SQL Developer Data Modeler - View Engineering

    I start with a Logical Model and forward engineer to a Relational Model.
    I am using Name Templates and a glossary for all names in my model which enables translations from Logical names to Physical abbreviated names with _ separators.
    When a View is created in a Logical Model and then forward engineered to a Relational Model, the resulting graphical image displays a translated physical name as the View name, however, the columns (or attributes) are displayed the same as the Logical versions (Full names with space separators).
    Is this a design decision? I'm expecting to see the physical column names on the display.
    The DDL of the generated view is correct with properly translated column names.
    Also, In cases where I have multiple (alias) views of the same physical table, I would love the ability to apply a prefix in front of each column name during view engineering to give unique column names for each view representation. This is a recommended technique in dimensional modeling when using multiple view aliases so that reporting tools see distinct column names for each appropriate context.
    Thanks,
    Dan

    Hi Dan,
    Also, In cases where I have multiple (alias) views of the same physical table, I would love the ability to apply a prefix in front of each column name during view engineering to give unique column names for each view representation. This is a recommended technique in >dimensional modeling when using multiple view aliases so that reporting tools see distinct column names for each appropriate context.I logged ER for that. You can define alias for each column and that will solve the problem. Unfortunately it'll take more time.
    however, the columns (or attributes) are displayed the same as the Logical versions (Full names with space separators)that's fixed.
    Philip

  • Problem when engineering to relational model

    I have modeled everything in Logical model and then engineered it to the relational model. Now I have to make some changes, and I'm doing them in Logical model. When I'm engineering it to Relational, although I just altered one single item, I see that it's also bringing some other entities as altered. Inpecting these I see that all of them relate to identifying foreign keys with more than one column. For examplo, I have an entity with 2 columns as primary key, and a second entity with an identifying foreign key to the first, and a third column, based on a sequence, which, all three of them, are the second tables primary key. Everything is OK, I haven't changed anything on any of these entities, but when I'm engineering to relational, it creates a duplicate of one of the columns on the relational model, and alters it's name appendig a number 1 after it. If I try engineering again, it is going to create another column appending a number 2 and so on.... I think this is a bug.... am I right?
    My alternate solution is to drop the foreign key on the relational model, thus dropping both columns, and then engineering from Logical again. Everything keeps working fine, until I close my model. When I open it again, the same problem reappears....

    Philip,
    Sorry for my too late reply, as I forgot to flag this discussion to notify me via e-mail. Thanks for your response, but I was actually using DM 4.0.1.836 and this issue still persisted.
    I just downloaded DM 4.0.2.840, and the issue still persists. I just opened my original model and, without making any changes, tried to forward engineer from logical to relational, and it brings up differences on exactly the same tables.
    Wolf
    P.S.: I've gone through the motions of dropping the FKs on the relational model, dropping any orphaned columns (from these FKs) and re-engineering. Afterwards, I saved and closed all models, closed the application, opened it again and opened my model and the issue persists.
    I also created a new model, with some tables using the same principles, and no error occurred, although in this new model I didn't create a physical model.
    Is it possible that something is wrong with my original model?

Maybe you are looking for