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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 94
31
Absolutely! +++++ as many votes as I can get in.  The number of times I have had to alt-squish-ctl-shift-tab-stop-pick-up-mouse-find-wanted-item-stop-thinking-start-copying-whatwasIdoinganyway!!! is uncountable!

Between you and I though, I think it might be a useability feature, so  :'(

b  

32
Suggestions and Requests / Re: drag-and-drop sorting of features
« on: September 02, 2010, 10:35:30 pm »
Cerebrobamus, ergo Visio (I shall have been thinking I could do this in Visio... I think, or thought, or plu-thought or somethink.  Ya wanna thight!)

And by the way Paul, my gender has always agreed with me and your can keep your thoughts about my genitives private thanks!  ;)

b (hehehehe)
Editors please note, there is no fullstop after me, in b.'s case there usually is. At least we know who we are, I think.

33
[highlight]It's a fair cop![/highlight]

OK, the top ten reasons why EA .. etc etc

10) They actually listen to their customers

The rest is up to you.

tg

34
Quote
Totus ego volo eram res ut vere opus

All I want is "something"* that actually works.

* For some reason I cant find the Latin for "software".  :-/

tg

35
Aw shucks, us here on the board of Electyronicks are just surely worried.  What'th is this here YouMule anyways?

tg

36
Ah, erh, um I think perhaps you may have got the wrong forum here.

But best wishes to you anyway .. errr "may the force be with you"  or something.

?

the ghost

p.s. Google "Spell Checker" and while you're at it see if you can find out what that "Shift" key does, but for hecks sake finish your homework before Mum gets home.

37
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Wiki Down?
« on: March 10, 2008, 07:08:22 pm »
http://sharepoint.standardcase.com/external/eaug/default.aspx

Found this via a google search for Bruno.  Don't know how good it gets though.

bruce

ed: Best clue I've found for Bruno is :
Quote
Pointshare

(Privately Held; Information Technology and Services industry)

December 2006 Present (1 year 4 months)

Co-founder and Senior Partner.in Pointshare, company that specializes in Microsoft Sharepoint and its customization. We pride ourselves in being able to customize Sharepoint including its User Interface to the extent that few others can.

(from LinkedIn - I have sent him a message asking him to contact)

...
btw: POINTSHARE LTD appears to be in no way linked to certain certain US(?) entities of similar names with other incorporation structures and "questionable" statii.
b

38
Suggestions and Requests / Splitter on element editors
« on: February 18, 2008, 06:42:45 pm »
Just by way of limbering up ...


How about a splitter on the editor forms between the "instance" area and the "list". For example, o the Operations editor there's a list of operations below the editBoxes for the currently selected operation.    But sometimes, just sometimes  (  ::) ) the contents of the No&tes editBox are  a bit more important than the list.

Currently the list gets stretched and the No&tes stay the same height - about 3 lines.

This is not what [size=24]I[/size] want. [/b]

I mean its not that difficult a concept is it?... or have I been spoiled lately  :)

bruce

39
Suggestions and Requests / Re: directed verb phrase on associations
« on: February 18, 2008, 03:31:03 pm »
Quote
and it also draws the expected "triangle" thing

AFAIK it's called a pennant.

However, this thread has caused me a fair deal of anxiety over the weekend.  I have searched many models for a case where I have put a "name" on an Association.  Couldn't find one.

Read the 8.1.2 super spec from end to end (yeah, I know "Get a life") and couldn't find anywhere that and association name directionality pennant was defined.  However, (further!) I do note that OMG quite casually uses them without defining them.  
???

BTW: I note that OMG is quite liberally using multiple insatnces of the same element in their superstructure diagrams.  (Hint Sparxians hint!).

bruce

40
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Packages, Namespaces & groupings
« on: November 06, 2007, 02:56:59 am »
 ;D Gee I love it when you guys talk dirty like this.


Thoughts: It's deteriorating the value of the <abstract> concept and may have ramifications. I know not what.

Votes:
Quote
Can anybody give me an example of an abstract package?
Should be taken up with OMG.

Real thoughts: "Packages" were (originallly) supposed to be purely organizational not structural. Components were supposed to be structural.  IMO namespace rooting should be (should always have been) lodged in/on a component basis.  However, I cannot blame EA for the mess we are currently in (and have been in for some time).  This time the blame lies entirely with OMG for confusing the package(organization)/component(deployable (((read "referentiable"))) entity).

Vote: Not sure, pragmatics v. polemic. ???  Where be the value?

bruce

41
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Free text fields - 2 suggestions
« on: December 11, 2007, 04:10:16 am »
q2, see the bottom of the post, the rest of ya...

I think this is a terrible idea.  I mean it might destroy the entire idea of the EA UUI concept.

I mean that over the last three or so years we have fought long and hard to maintain one of the most unintitive, confounding and teethgrindingly infuriatingly pieces of software on the planet completely unintuitive, confounding and teethgrindingly infuriating.

... and what do you want, you want to destroy all that we have  been fighting for.

... for lawds sake, the next thing you'll be asking for is multiple select.

fwiw
bruce

q2: the entire above is possibly, slightly or even moderately sarcastic, but not aimed at you.  ;D

42
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Synchronization of interfaces
« on: September 26, 2007, 03:19:23 am »
No, No, No, No ... No

Let me put it as simply as I can.

The probability of breaking an entire model, build, system, if this was allowed is approximately 99.9997%

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

What is needed (IMO) is a way to define an interface as being in "prototype" mode.  If so, then changes to the interface should raise big ugly red blobs all over any and all affected classifiers affected.  Then, if it's not in prototype mode changes should be disallowed with 150kV through the keyboard should any idiot try to change it.

While in prototype mode, EA should not change, alter, modify, stuff around with or even think about any affected element.  No name changes, no signature changes, no nothing.

I have seen this happen in three major projects. Some monkey decided that the declared interface "wasn't exactly what he needed" and changed it.  I'd guess the total cost of this was around $AU150k, after we stuffed around for days trying to figure out why libraries no longer compiled, builds broke etc etc.

Changing an interface is a major architectural decision, e.g. lets just change "+" to always return a single precision floating point ..... or maybe define collections to hold a maximum of 1 element ... or strings to be a zero delimited array ...  or "iSerialable.write" to output in EBCDIC.

Do you understand yet???

bruce

43
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Synchronization of interfaces
« on: September 24, 2007, 01:36:43 am »
I say nozzing,

...

yet awhile


bruce   ;D

44
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Rotate Diagram Objects
« on: August 14, 2007, 12:05:50 am »
Just as a DA* question...

If the model is so complex that elements have to be rotated to "make it clearer", i.e. the audience has to rotate their head to read it, do you really think it wil help?

By way of example, I recently was trying to decipher a sectioning diagram ("drainage" to some of you). We wnded up having to drive out to the site and put the diagram on the ground to work out the sections te draughtsperson was referring to.  Even then, he had rotated some of the sections totally out of alignment with each other that we had to get him out to explain.


bruce

* Devil's Advocate

45
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Modeling Support
« on: April 29, 2007, 11:49:49 pm »
Hi all,

A weekly drop in.  I MUST support Jim's idea.  After all it's the topic that got me looking for better ways...

An idea,  maybe a new thread, I'll leave it up to y'all.

Maybe the EA product has got to the point where a complete re-think of product orientation would be beneficial.  Specifically, splitting EA into a suite of three complimentary utilities - modelling, data modelling and code engineering (or if you must-"MDA").

Of course, such a suite would have to adress "cross-cutting " concerns in a major way! ;-)

Back next week, hopefully, p'raps.

bruce

p.s.  I wont be using the yabb PM system, its too slow.  You can contact me in the first instance at adamant@inbox.com    

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 94