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 - Thelonius

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Multiple instances of element in diagram
« on: February 23, 2009, 08:36:55 pm »

What if the 'duplicate' was merely a 'ghost' image - not a real component / element - just a replicant that referred back to the single 'real' element?

How would that be different to the (exisiting) "instance of" type?  ;)


Not sure, Oliver. But let me use an example to find out what you're referring to.

So if I have a 'Component' element in a busy, large, complex diagram, and it would be really useful to have a copy of the same element on the same diagram just for presentation purposes - with connectors from the copy to certain other components - how can I create an 'instance of' one of the Components and have both on the same diagram?

Or does my question belie my lack of understanding of the nuances of UML?

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Multiple instances of element in diagram
« on: February 22, 2009, 12:36:54 pm »
Then remove the non-UML model types from EA. I'm talking about flowcharts, and analysis diagrams where you just need to get your artifacts on a diagram to help present a picture of your enterprise to a bunch of executives.

Sean, I accept your motivation and see your issue. However the problems of duplicate elements will remain, especially when it comes to connecting elements together, changing appearance, creating references or searching in diagrams. This is regardless the type of elements or diagrams you are creating and I assume that the efforts of implementing a clean solution (touching various aspects in the model and diagram handling) which is satisfactory for most application are rather high not justifying the cause.


No arguments here, it's a modeling tool not a presentation tool. However as you climb the chain in an organization eventually you need presentations that even numb minded executives with marketing degrees can 'understand'. Visio it is for now.

What if the 'duplicate' was merely a 'ghost' image - not a real component / element - just a replicant that referred back to the single 'real' element?

Even connections from other elements to the 'ghost replicant' would - in terms of the UML model and repository - show up as being connected to the one single 'real' element?

Thinking laterally here ... we need to preserve the integrity of UML - but it would be nice to be able to create simpler presentation material for 'numb minded executives'  ;)

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Set label visibility for all connectors
« on: February 28, 2012, 04:25:04 pm »
Yes, your furniture very nice. Post pictures your furniture to see here.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Archimate 2.0
« on: February 23, 2012, 09:05:03 am »
Yes, that would be wonderful, wouldn't it? Don't hold your breath. The Sparx implementation of ArchiMate needs a re-think. The ArchiMate meta model is strongly typed, especially the relationships. Sparx EA is UML-centric. UML meta models are relaxed and casual. With the Sparx ArchiMate implementation, you can connect anything to anything, unfortunately. The relationship rules are voluntary, and you have to memorise them. Which is not a good idea. Then there's the quality of the graphics in Sparx. Other ArchiMate tools enforce the strong meta model rules of ArchiMate. Have a look at Archi - which is free, but is being used by professional architects. ArchiMate is looking like a growth skill for solution architects. Sparx should give their support for ArchiMate considered thought. I am the eternal optimist. :)

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Request: Indication of available notes
« on: January 19, 2012, 11:43:31 am »
Good idea - just a small graphical indicator that signifies "there is an actual note that has been added here - it's not empty"

Suggestions and Requests / Re: unstable connection lines
« on: January 04, 2012, 07:00:51 am »
I have had the same problem for years now. Reported but doesn't seem as though it will ever be fixed. Text on connector lines move around and does not stay where I've put it after saving the diagram. Frustrating. Makes diagrams look tatty. :(

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Public Bug/Feature Tracking
« on: October 30, 2009, 10:09:42 am »
What a great idea. Other companies do this (IBM, Microsoft, etc) for software products. It's an effective way to use the EA Community.

I'm not sure why Sparx seem to want to keep the bug and product enhancement request list (or information about the strategic product market roadmap for that matter) behind the veil.

"Commercial in Confidence"?

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Select multiple "things" on a diagram
« on: September 13, 2010, 05:20:22 pm »
I'm enjoying the intellectual and comedic stimulus of this thread.

I know I'm not going to get anything from Sparx.

Psst. I've moved to Orbus iServer. It doesn't matter anymore.

Suggestions and Requests / Establish a new discussion group
« on: September 10, 2010, 07:08:47 am »

Establish a new, separate, dedicated discussion group for users of Sparx EA who are using Sparx EA for Enterprise Architecture. E.g., establishing an Enterprise Architecture repository and skill sets to create and manage artefacts relating to business, data, application, technology in the corporate context.

This is my area of interest for the tool. And I know there are hundreds of other professionals out there in the world using it for the same purpose.

I find it a bit odd that the dominant flow of messages on the Sparx board is about writing VBA scripts, reverse engineering, and technical questions related to software architecture / software engineering.

And yet the tool is named "Enteprise Architect" - not "Software Architect". There is a TOGAF plug-in for Sparx, but there is negligible discussion on the Sparx forum of how customers are using TOGAF, the TOGAF plug-in, or Sparx professionallly.

End of message. :)

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Ceterum censeo erroris esse rectam
« on: July 04, 2010, 11:56:57 am »
This thread is funny. But I think you guys are losing it. Too many years struggling with the tool, and living in forlorn hope that someday the big fat Sparx Santa will wriggle down your chimney and deposit a big pile of gifts under your tree.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Resizable dialogues
« on: January 11, 2010, 05:13:31 pm »
We keep identifying them here?

Maybe do both: while I'm happy to keep tabs on this thread and implement what's needed in response to it, it's probably a bit safer if you log it through the official channels. That way if I suddenly inherit millions of dollars from a rich relative I never knew I had and am forced to leave work to focus on a life of decadent pleasure seeking, then at least someone will be able to take up the bat.

Until then, I'll keep regularly checking this thread when I can and implementing the recomendations when time allows.  8-)

That happens to me all the time. I just keep working.  :o

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Resizable dialogues
« on: December 02, 2009, 11:08:15 am »

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Viewing more things 'side by side'
« on: January 24, 2010, 09:21:06 am »
Definitely yes +1

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Allow replacement of EA Aggregations
« on: October 05, 2009, 03:26:45 pm »
In build 849 - released today, I find the following in the release notes:

Connector labels for Aggregation and Composition source and target roles will display a derived '/' symbol, if the derived option is set.

This doesn't help, does it?

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Allow replacement of EA Aggregations
« on: October 02, 2009, 05:27:43 am »
Agree with this request.

I wonder why Sparx does not appear to give significant feedback to legitimate feature requests on this forum. Such as this.

Among the best aspects of being a loyal advocate of the Sparx EA tool (I was using EA-created artefact examples in a TOGAF 9 course this week that I've been teaching) is the ... well there are a lot of reasons.

But one of the things that is starting to bug me a little is that feature requests from heavyweight users like you guys - who contribute a lot of knowledge to this forum - often seem to go ignored.

Goes into a black hole. No response. No "roadmap" information from Sparx such as "we've been thinking about that and it may be in a release in about a year" or "that's not such a good idea and we're never going to do that - go take a hike" or anything.

Am I wrong?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15