Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
Hi Paolo,

 thank you for your answer. I am aware that objects do not have attributes, qwerty already mentioned that in my original SO question. I also know that the Sparx specific feature "Link to Element Feature" is not a UML standard. The reason I posted this problem on the Spary forum is that qwerty suggested to send a feature request about the issue. Maybe I misunderstood this.

Sorry for phrasing my question/request inconsistently or ambiguously. The main thing I want to accomplish is, that I want to "show" objects (not classes) and their relationship to other objects (actually the same as in the 1st image, but for concrete instances). Would you recommend to me, to rephrase the question/post? I will have a look at your post anyway, so maybe I get a clue of what you meant on how to solve this properly.

Thanks again! Ronald
Bugs and Issues / Re: EA14: Archimate shapescript / rendering issues
« Last post by matthew.james on June 22, 2018, 12:53:03 pm »
I have reported this as a bug will see what EA comes back with

Sparx have responded with "confirmed as an issue to be fixed in a future build of EA", so it's on the backlog.  No idea of timing
General Board / Re: Connector Label Text  - Can't change font / size
« Last post by skiwi on June 22, 2018, 12:40:19 pm »
General Board / Re: Deployment Diagram questions
« Last post by Glassboy on June 22, 2018, 12:09:43 pm »
Second, somewhat related, how does one best represent a cluster and its individual nodes on a deployment diagram? We've been simply using a single node using a naming convention 'Cluster'<Type><RootName><Node1Name>/<Node2Name>/etc. So example ClusterAIXFluffA/B/C. However, there are times when we'd like to specify differences in node behavior in instances of the same cluster type. So ClusterAIXFluffA/B/C is a mirrored redundant set of nodes but ClusterAIXPeanutA/B/C has a primary node with two fail-over nodes. Our engineers need to know that a node failure on ClusterFluff is automatically handled and no special code needs to be written. However on ClusterPeanut, they need to know to wait for the failover node to spin up if the primary node goes down, as well as which is the primary,secondary,tertiary node (legacy systems, amiright?). What would be the best way to model the differences and failure details between the two cluster types?

I think, that a cluster is a collection of nodes.  It has no compute resource in of itself (unlike a hypervisor).  So I think Qwerty's advice is spot on, although with what you're trying today a package may be better than a boundary.

In ArchiMate terms you'd use nodes in a grouping and then assign locations to each node.  I must admit I never use Sparx's group element because the shapescript is far harder to deal with than a boundary.
General Board / Re: Deployment Diagram questions
« Last post by Paolo F Cantoni on June 22, 2018, 11:39:50 am »
Hi Matthew,

An interesting question.  Certainly, from a theoretical point of view, the change should flow through from the Classifier to the Instance.  However, in an enterprise situation where a modeller may not be aware that others have created such instances, it should NOT flow through automatically.  The tool should observe that there are instances (optionally list them) and ask if the change should be flowed.  It may be, as qwerty suggested, that the original model may have been slightly defective and just changing the Classifier type may be injecting more issues.

Personally, I try to use the virtual connectors whenever I can, but I agree that their implementation is "weird and buggy". Before they existed, my work-around was to create 2 separate diagrams, then place one on the other as a diagram frame, using the "Hidden" option. A little clumsy to edit, but the effect is to allow multiple instances of the same element on one diagram, and it shouldn't compromise your model integrity.

They're NOT "Virtual connectors" they are Virtual Connector Ends.  The distinction is very important!

While they are called Virtual Connector Ends, they create REAL objects on the diagram.  In my view, one of the major problems with the current implementation is that while they create REAL objects on the diagram - you can move them around etc. - there is NO real diagram object created in the repository!  From this design flaw flow a lot of the "bugs" (user experience defects) I have reported.

Hi Ronald,
qwerty is correct, objects don't have attributes.  They have "slots" and as such the semantics are equivalent.  He is also correct that you should be using associations and role names.

Looking at your "object" model, I see numerous issues with it before it is in a fit state to create the "Link to Element Feature" functionality you are after.

Also, be aware that the question of what is a Classifier and what is an Instance (note I didn't say Class and Object) is not straightforward.  I have a number of posts - some in the fairly recent past that touch on this.  This is exemplified by some of the issues I see in your model.

General Board / Re: SQL query for connections with name="External Reference"
« Last post by KP on June 22, 2018, 08:51:06 am »
And don't forget that you can use intellisense. Unfortunately, when typing a SQL statement like this into EA's SQL builder

select c.Connector_ID as id, from t_connector c where"External Reference"

you don't get intellisense when you type c. but if you type t_connector. then you will see all the fields available in that table.
General Board / Re: Deployment Diagram questions
« Last post by matthew.james on June 22, 2018, 08:40:47 am »
You may claim it to the tool but then again, it was your fault.

Interesting response ...
There is a lot of 'challenging' discussion in these forums where people are criticised (often fairly) becaue they want the tool to do something that would potentially compromise the modelling.  EA is after all a modelling tool (not a diagramming tool for example).

Yes there was user error here, but if EA is a modelling tool then I would expect that an instance would be linked to the abstract type and would retain model consistency.

Does the tool work this way ? apparently not
Is it likely to change ? possibly / probably not so we should understand that and work with the reality of where we are
Should it work this way ? I'd say that yes it should retain consistency
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10