REC / RPL Compliancy Definitions

Currently, only the black box compliancy is implemented, and we have no immediate plan to implement the two others (i.e. no funding and no request for that). These compliancy schemes are extensible:
With no development skill, you can create your own kind of compliancy
Should you have any development skill, you could develop the corresponding validation rules

Hi,
when I use Black box I don’t have the states getting but when I’m using the Inheritancy_reuse I have it: so there’s some differencies, no ?
But it seems it’s not fully working well because I cannot made 2 RPL based on the same REC (seems comming from states which are not sub fixed prehaps ) ?
I know that Thales is working on Libs to improve it :

  • did you advise to not use Lib for the moment because too many issues with ?
  • is it possible to know the containt of evolutions ?
    Thanks

No, I don’t believe there is any difference when created REC when we select one or another compliance option.
And no, we did not advise to avoid libraries because of issues.
I just tried creating a REC containing a component and its state machine, I’ve been able to instantiate it twice. See hereunder.
Would you be able to provide more detailed use cases?
Regards

You’re right it’s working well.
I don’t know what’s happen but the issue is comming from elements I put inside my REC because when I do it on other new elements I have several RPL created without problem (like you).
So sorry I have something wrong on my model ;-(

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