Issue reporter to provide a detailed description of the issue in the space below
When creating a new AMI4CCM port on a newly created interface it is necessary to marked the interface itself as "isAsynchronous" in the CXInterface stereotype in the Profile tab, otherwise, validation will generate an error.
An interface is just an interface specifying operations. It should not require a designation for "isAsynchronous". Only the receptacle should matter if its asynchronous or not.
An interface can be used in many different places, CORBA4CCM or AMI4CCM. However, it appears that the interface needs to be marked as "isAsynchronous" in order to generate the right tags in IDL.
This issue proposes to add a checkbox to the CX tab (of the interface) that says "AMI4CCM capable" or something like that and have it defaulted to not checked. If checked, then the developer can type ports as AMI4CCM with it. If not, then it can't.
Issue and tracking information
Developer's time Estimated effort to fix (hours):
Developer's Actual time spent on fix (hours)
Issue reporter to provide a detailed description of the issue in the space below
When creating a new AMI4CCM port on a newly created interface it is necessary to marked the interface itself as "isAsynchronous" in the CXInterface stereotype in the Profile tab, otherwise, validation will generate an error.
An interface is just an interface specifying operations. It should not require a designation for "isAsynchronous". Only the receptacle should matter if its asynchronous or not. An interface can be used in many different places, CORBA4CCM or AMI4CCM. However, it appears that the interface needs to be marked as "isAsynchronous" in order to generate the right tags in IDL.
This issue proposes to add a checkbox to the CX tab (of the interface) that says "AMI4CCM capable" or something like that and have it defaulted to not checked. If checked, then the developer can type ports as AMI4CCM with it. If not, then it can't.