Location of Parts with incoming PartDeployment Link

When I use the “Deploy Component” tool, I am surprised that the part of the deployed Component is stored under the Physical System. IMO, that’s not consistent with the notion of a Component being a Type that owns Parts being Properties of that Type. Would it not be better to store such parts under the Physical Context? The current implementation makes reasoning about the Physical System more complex than it would be otherwise.
As an example: I think I shouldn’t be able to create a diagram such as the one in the attachment. It shows a part PC12 twice, once, as child of the Physical System, because well, the part is owned by the Physical System. And once again, as a child of Part PC13, because well, PC 12 is also deployed into PC13.

I agree with you for the diagram: in “pure” Arcadia we can only deploy Behavior on Nodes. It should not be allowed to deploy Nodes on Nodes.

Pascal, my point with the diagram was not about the behaviour vs node. I just meant to explain that the structure with deployments is so seemingly ambiguous that it is very easy to not get it right when interpreting a model, and I ask myself if we couldn’t simplify that structure to make it less seemingley ambiguous.

Copyright © Eclipse Capella, the Eclipse Capella logo, Eclipse and the Eclipse logo are Trademarks of The Eclipse Foundation.