Author Topic: Default landscape diagram setting "wonky" (Read 6762 times)

Paolo F Cantoni · « **on:** June 03, 2009, 06:45:14 pm »

The Landscape setting for the project default diagram is "wonky". On my machine it's set to A3 Landscape. And when I create a new diagram using the UI - it will create one. However, if I enter the "Options" diagram settings dialog. The Landscape option is unchecked. If I go to page setup; Landscape is set and if I immediately cancel, the original checkbox is now checked... I previously never bothered with tis bit of what seemed to be EAUI, but if I try to set up a diagram by automation, it creates an A3 portrait diagram.

Creating a diagram should be the same whether by UI or automation...

Reported,
Paolo

Paolo F Cantoni · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2009, 07:08:43 pm »

Further to the above, I thought I would force the landscape orientation by automation, having created the diagram.

Using the Help, I tried:
diagram.Orientation = "L";

Indeed, before the assignment, diagram.Orientation was set to "P", and after, "L". But I still ended up with a portrait diagram. Even closing the diagram and then reopening it changing the orientation and re-saving didn't change the orientation.

Does anyone know the "secret handshake" to getting EA to change the Diagram orientation?

TIA,
Paolo

«Midnight» · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2009, 08:27:26 pm »

I have run into this before Paolo. Somehow I managed to get the diagram to switch, but it was not intuitive. Nor is it something I remember now.

I'll try to find some old (really old) code and let you know if I do.

Paolo F Cantoni · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2009, 12:15:11 am »

Quote

I have run into this before Paolo. Somehow I managed to get the diagram to switch, but it was not intuitive. Nor is it something I remember now.

I'll try to find some old (really old) code and let you know if I do.

Thanks for that David,

But it's actually a real bug... If I open the properties for the diagram, the Landscape Checkbox is NOT set, but if I open the advanced dialog, the Landscape radio button is marked and if I then OK out, the original property checkbox is now marked and the diagram changes to Landscape!

Go figure...

EAUI++

Paolo

It takes more work to make things inconsistent! ^TM

EDIT: The behaviour for the Portrait setting is slightly more complex. You actually have to "press" the already marked radio button.

And setting the value to P or L in the database is only an indication of what you'd like. EA seems to put the actual orientation somewhere else...

fwoolz · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2009, 12:38:45 am »

Paolo,

I am a huge fan of EA, but at some point I'm afraid Sparx is going to have to do some serious stepping back and refactoring. Features appear to have been added in an ad-hoc manner in many cases without sufficient investigation of the impact on/compatibility with features already implemented, and the database schema has been hacked in so many places (in different ways) that it must be extremely difficult to do proper software maintenance. As UML and its offshoots evolve and grow, these problems will only multiply. If Sparx were to open up the source code to the community, I'm sure a number of users would be most happy to help. Barring this, Sparx could still bring the user community in to the development process in a controlled way. Sparx is a small company and EA is a fantastic value; both of those factors argue for community involvement so that Sparx can remain "lean and mean" and EA can remain the bargain that it is.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

Paolo F Cantoni · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2009, 12:57:41 am »

Thanks for the support Fred,

I have tons of thoughts, but dare not express them...

Suffice to say I am seriously concerned that EA will implode upon itself without a major redesign. Refactoring won't do it.

Somewhere else in the forum- Neil Capey took me to task that recoding from scratch had been shown to kill products.

I chose my words carefully even then... Redesign is NOT the same as recoding. And in any case, I have yet to see a good design suffer from recoding. A bad design on the other hand...

My issue is with the lack of consistent architecture within EA. Including the fact that the UI DOESN'T use the automation system to do its job...

If EA implodes, I'm left without a tool...

So I don't want that to happen, but I can't see how to stop it....

Certainly I agree that a number of users would have significant contributions to make to an improved design...

Paolo

fwoolz · « **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2009, 01:12:21 am »

Paolo,

I deliberately used the term "refactor," although I wanted to say something about starting with a clean sheet of paper...

The only way I can see this happening without Sparx hiring a boatload of software engineers and jacking the price of EA up to 10 times what it is now is to OPEN UP THE CODE TO THE COMMUNITY. Maybe not by going full-blown open source, but at least by inviting interested users with expertise into the development process. Some would do so, I'm sure, happily on a volunteer basis; others might want to be compensated. But I think it's essential. That, and a real issue/bug tracking application like Bugzilla or Trac that is "open to the public."

Anyway, that's my tuppence.

«Midnight» · « **Reply #7 on:** June 04, 2009, 06:47:29 am »

Yeah guys,

I've chimed in on this issue - the need to take a break on new features and get the basic product in order. As you say Fred, it is not enough to do maintenance; the it is time to refactor the product (same reasoning as you for the wording). So too for the underlying database schema.

But I too have been crying into the wind on this issue. At least to date...

KP · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2009, 09:08:48 am »

Quote

Somewhere else in the forum- Neil Capey took me to task that recoding from scratch had been shown to kill products.

I can't claim credit, it was Joel Spolsky: Things You Should Never Do, Part I.

Paolo F Cantoni · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2009, 09:33:12 am »

Quote

I can't claim credit, it was Joel Spolsky: ....

Well as a long time listener to (and sometime user of) "Stack Overflow", Joel is very entertaining but not always on the money... In particular the duo have penchant for "Architect bashing" - certainly voiced in one of their recent podcasts. Perhaps that reflects their experience with many, so-called, architects: "In titulo, ego sum^[1]" (with apologies to Rene Descartes), but real architecture - shows!

Parts of EA are fundamentally broken... You can't refactor broken stuff; you have to redesign. Architecture doesn't mean a complete redesign just a coordination of design.

I'm sympathetic to the situation you're in, Neil; but ultimately I (and apparently others) think it's untenable.

Paolo
^[1]"I am thus 'entitled', therefore I am.
(how many people have we come across who've proved the Peter Principle as "architects")

fwoolz · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2009, 10:27:37 am »

Cheers Neil,

What about the possibility of a community assist? As a "long-time" user of EA (since back in the 3.x days), I have been consistently impressed by the capabilities of the tool, particularly when balanced against its price. But I think EA's recent growth spurt has resulted in a bit of awkwardness and clumsiness. And it has exposed some of the awkwardness and clumsiness that was perhaps always there but was never quite as obvious. It may very well be that UML technology is growing faster than EA can keep up, in part because of the rapid adoption of UML in a number of domains and in part because the core of the original design has reached its scalability limit. And maybe the patched-on bits aren't attached as firmly as they should be.

This isn't intended as criticism but as friendly advice. I'm certain that the EA user community would jump at the chance at contributing directly to the improvement of EA. I mean, folks don't post to these forums several thousand times unless they are deeply interested in the product. Such a move would, btw, also expose more programmers to the innards of the tool, making it easier for them to code tools extending EA's capabilities.

Give it a think, eh?

All the best,

Paolo F Cantoni · « **Reply #11 on:** May 28, 2015, 06:28:00 pm »

Quote

The Landscape setting for the project default diagram is "wonky". On my machine it's set to A3 Landscape. And when I create a new diagram using the UI - it will create one. However, if I enter the "Options" diagram settings dialog. The Landscape option is unchecked. If I go to page setup; Landscape is set and if I immediately cancel, the original checkbox is now checked... I previously never bothered with tis bit of what seemed to be EAUI, but if I try to set up a diagram by automation, it creates an A3 portrait diagram.

Creating a diagram should be the same whether by UI or automation...

Reported,
Paolo

Well here's a blast fro the past!

I can't seem to show the default option for diagrams to be Landscape!
Pretty much as I reported 7 years ago! Is it just me? The landscape check box just isn't sticky in the Tools | Options | Diagram | Page Setup area.

Paolo

qwerty · « **Reply #12 on:** May 30, 2015, 09:36:15 pm »

Ask skiwi. He's regularly posting on "what's not in the new EA version again".

q.

Sparx Systems Forum

News: