[Feature Request] Add option to move Connection Layer behind Primary Layer

[VinceAxe]

On the last version of Archi (I can't remember if it was the same behavior before)

When I add a new element (even a visual note)
And I want to use "Bring to front" in order to put it over relations

It does not work and the relations stays in front of the element

[Phillipus]

This is because connections are drawn on a different layer than nodes, and this layer is above the drawing layer of nodes. So a "Bring To Front" above connections is not possible.

[Phillipus]

As the connection layer's position can only be set for the whole diagram I've renamed the feature request.

@jbsarrodie I've just done some testing and it is possible to move the connection layer behind the primary layer so that connections are drawn behind nodes. I don't know if this is useful or even if there are side effects. What do you think?

The code is in branch connection-layer

[jbsarrodie]

Hi. I don't really like this option because if a connection is drawn behind an element then people will understand it as two relationships (one to the element and one from the element).

@VinceAxe what was the use-case?

[Phillipus]

Hi. I don't really like this option because if a connection is drawn behind an element then people will understand it as two relationships (one to the element and one from the element).

That's a good reason. Probably why the connection layer is in front of the primary layer by default in GEF.

[Petrolevb]

The idea behind this use case was to make a legend, in this case we have 2 times 9 Flow that are about referentials and golden data.
Putting all of them in a corner but with a specific (overlapping) legend
I understand the side effect of two relationship instead of one ... but there are similar side effects with elements that can hide some others as well

(Might it even be a way to represent an ESB ?)

[rchevallier]

I think the risk of misinterpretation is too strong.

[Phillipus]

I think the risk of misinterpretation is too strong.

I agree, I don't think we will implement this for general usage.

[Phillipus]

Shall we close this issue?