Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sargasso

Pages: 1 ... 89 90 [91] 92 93 94
1351
Uml Process / Re: to split or not to split
« on: February 09, 2004, 01:29:24 pm »
Fluxtah,

I just realised I didn't provide a direct answer in that.

The use case provides us with a framework in which to derive detailed requirements. The effort above was an attempt to show how the initial use cases - derived directly from the user "needs statement" - rapidly expands into a set of detailed requirements that can be implemented in a variety of ways.

Both the detailed requirements and the implementation thereof need to be carefully examined by the user and approved as meeting their needs.

So, it is "alright" to start with a set of use cases that "look" like system functions - but the idea is to use these as a means to deriving the true, complete and unambiguous requirements of the system.

1352
Uml Process / Re: to split or not to split
« on: February 09, 2004, 01:20:20 pm »
Now that is a good example.  Here we are talking about business level transactions that "happen" to have similar names to technical functions.
There are, as you say three use cases.  However I would name them slightly differently just to illustrate my points:
1) Put article on website
2) Remove article from website
3) Maintain article material
The first two are fairly straighforward, moving a source file to or from a live server from or to the users personal workspace. The third I will treat a little later.

Now lets think about UC1 - is that all there is to it? Just a technical file movement function?  Are there any business rules that apply to the situation (or are there likely to be any in the near future)?  Is is a copy or a move? Does the user expect any validation to be done during the move, if so how are exceptions to be handled? Can anyone move anything at all to the server?  Does any material associated with the article have to be moved at the same time (graphics, stylesheets, etc)?  Does the article have to be reformatted to fit into the website (framewidths, etc)? Are there any links that have to be set up on the server to make the article active?  ..... etc
Not quite as simple as it looked.  
Similarly, UC2 can, once its analysed become more than just a simple file movement function.
To return to UC3, one has to wonder what the user expects by "would like to edit the articles"?  Whose articles can a user edit - anyones? What tools do they expect to use to "edit" the articles?  ...etc
Leaving these questions unanswered, and assuming the user can edit any article at all using whatever tool they desire the UC can still be broken down into UC3.1 Create a new article and UC3.2 Edit an existing article.
UC3.1 can be implemented through the following scenario:
    [1]User creates article using their favourite tool
    [2] User saves article as a local file
    [3] User transfers article to website using UC1

Thus, if the above scenario is acceptable to the user, UC3.1 requires no implementation, all functionality is provided elsewhere.
UC3.2 on the other hand requires still more analysis.  The niaive interpretation is that the UC involves moving the article from the website, allowing them to change it, and re-adding it to the website.  Is this true?  Do they expect the article to be unavailable on the site while it is being editted? What needs to be done if this is the case?  Is it to be removed completely - as if it never existed - or is it to be replaced with a redirect to a "temporaily unavailable" notice?  If the latter, what happens if they never return it? ...etc

So, although I have raised a couple of business usage questions about the system, I have not delved into any of the technical issues. Nor have I become concerned about the rules and regulations of use cases in UML.
The three use cases I started with have been converted to a possible four cases.  But before I get stuck into the design of the system, I will just nip back to Mr User and get a couple of these questions answered.

Hope this helps.
Bruce

1353
Uml Process / Re: to split or not to split
« on: February 08, 2004, 03:25:19 pm »

1354
Uml Process / Re: New 'SPEM' Beta Profile Available
« on: September 25, 2003, 10:52:09 pm »
Almost in the same place!  I was just about to start building my own profile.  Thanks Geoff!

However! Putting that link to the d*** SPEM document was cruel and unusual punishment!

Bruce

1355
Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: Get/Set properties
« on: February 22, 2008, 02:48:41 pm »
I'm dragging this up for personal reasons.  (My memory is failing!)

For C++, I want to have getters with no prefix and setters with "set".  Setting the setter prefix to "set" sets up everything nicely.  But if I delete "get" in the getter option it still generates accessor names with "get" in front of them.

Can someone please confirm this aint working or whether its only for me.  It may be a peculiarity of the linux version and I don't want to send Sparxians off on a goose chase.

bruce

1356
Quote
Bruno has been out of the office for a while (though he is back now, I am sure he will pop by the forum!)


Yay!  Cummon down Bruno.  Its been too long!

bruce

1357
Hi Felicity,

Please check your private messages.

:)

bruce

1358
You might have missed my point...

Try asking SC whether he would be available for comment

:-X

1359
Isn't Standard Case Bruno Cossi's bunch?  Is he around? If i'm right I'd be seeking him out on this.

bruce
:-/


Mod: Sorry Paul, I thought you were someone else.  On the "Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools" page there is a link that was started by a gentleman by the name of Bruno Cossi.  He seems to have gone missing from the forum of late.  Try asking SC whether he would be available for comment ... so to speak.

1360
Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: Document Generation
« on: October 04, 2006, 08:04:19 pm »
Nick,

IME the problem is not within the rtf generated by EA - it lies in the fact that rtf is not a Standard.  The rtf output is perfectly manipulatable in Word 97 but not in Word 2003 - Word 2003 manipulateable rtf is not useable in any prior version of Word.

As you say, the best (only) way is to paste the text into a formattable Word doc in the version of your choice.

MS have structurally changed the rtf spec so many times its ridiculous.  I think (IMO) the only tags left useable are bold and underline, let alone heading styles.



bruce

1361
 :-X
No, in fact contrary to most mathematical theory and to some extent recent moves by OMG, Elements and Conectors remain (after 3 years of my complaints) entirely different species of  lifeforms.

sorry,hth
bruce  



1362
Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: TeX documentation
« on: March 13, 2007, 09:17:00 pm »
DSR! My gawd, I'd forgotten that even existed.

+troff
+nroff

Runoff - a bl**dy wimp tool ;D

... getting too excited.. may have to have a little lay down.



bruce

1363
I do know that the "old" generator produces pure rtf spec 2 or 3 something ??? .. whatever it was some time ago (too tired to go and fight with the rtf spec websites again).

I do not know, having never r_e_a_l_l_y tried to find out, what rtf spec the new generator is trying to comply with.

Having said that, let me now say this.  Regardless of EA, I have had exactly very little success with anything that attempts to produce anything past M$ rtf 3.7 (?? I think ??) as a viable document interchange mechanism.  This includes many attempts to get rtf to interchange between different native versions of Office.  In short, it as much a standard interchange mechanism as trying to use a line printer as a scanning device.

And.. as much as XMI, which can't even decide on a common definition, let alone a standard, of a <diagram> (which is probably the most germaine atom of a UML model)... I reckon !!!, that its about time that Sparx either gave up trying to flog this "new" generator and chucked it or ... wait for it... gave up stuffing new and generally useless (non-working( functionality into the product and fixed the basics.


regards
bruce ... currently looking for alternatives (ooh ooh a threat.)

1364
I don't think that rtf version 3 (which is what I think EA still uses supports diagram scaling.  The image is just stuck into the doc as a generally "stuffed up" bitmap/wmf.  

I have had the same problems with image sizing for over 2 years, the only work around I know it to manually re-size the image in the final document.

Suffice to say, I have mentioned before, that rtf is not an information interchange standard.

bruce

1365
My intitial reaction was to say "Only document 2/3 of your system" but since I have recently been accused of suffering from aquired acute sarcasm syndrome I have refrained.

Please read    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

In short, there is no way we understand what it is you are trying to do or achieve from such "one-liners".

Having said that, please dont get offended in any way by this post - we'll try to help if we can.

regards
bruce

Pages: 1 ... 89 90 [91] 92 93 94