Hi Stephane
thanks for your reoly. Sorry for not having come back to you earlier but I didn’t get a notification
Another question:
I have a function ‘that has a method’ that may need be invoked under different circumstances.
What I thought I’d do (and I want to have a REC out of this) is to create a property value group with

  • command
  • when to invoke
    How do I create a list of ‘Property Value Groups’?
    What I want to be able to achieve is, when I create an RPL I am able to ‘add’ a new command depending on the function with which I am working (an empty list to which I am adding stuff). Is this possible or do I need to do that only when I instantiate the REC?

Hello Ricardo, wrote on Fri, 11 May 2018 05:44
How do I create a list of ‘Property Value Groups’?
You can create a Property Value Group which contains other Property Value Groups!
Meanwhile, I’m not sure to fully understand your need: is the list of Property Value Groups needed to manage a list of “methods” that will be shared by all your functions, with only the “command” and “when to invoke” property being specific for each function?

HI Aurelien
for your reply.
I already have a Property Value Group that holds other Property Value Groups.
Maybe I can try to explain myself a little bit better.
When you have a car with a media system you can connect different types of players: e.g. a DVD Player, a CD player, a USB stick. But you have one media system. So what I wanted to do is to be able to, for different cars, connect different players a have a ‘list of players’ for a specifica car model.

Hi Ricardo,
Ideally when changing topic, the best is to create a new thread
I am not sure I understand the link between your questions about Property Values and the “car/player” example you mention. For the example you mention, we usually rely on Product Line Engineering techniques. We have a model representing 150% of our options (meaning several times a “player function” allocated to several different components), we have a feature model representing all the option and the constraints between them (in a tool like Pure::Variants) and a mapping between the architecture and feature models. In other words, we specify variability in the architecture. The tooling then allows to derive the 150% (product) model in a project-specific one (i.e. one where we have made choices between the options). That might be too much in your case, I don’t know.
Would you be able to elaborate on your car example and send us how you would model that in Capella? So that we can better understand your need?

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