UML Modeling Product Wars

[derek73]

Most excellent! /evil_laughter

I'm now running one of four new shared license corporate editions!  My model is looking pretty snazzy!  I have two class models.  One shows the implementation and the framework, while the other just shows the implementation to get rid of the inheritance (realize and generalization) lines and objects.

I have a sequence diagram for components, and another sequence diagram for instances of the classes at run-time.  It's pretty fun!  I just jammed 20 files into the source code repository for source code generation.

Diagraming the project with UML has taken the original concept and reworked it. I discovered so many limitations in the original design - mainly in relationships at the wrong level of abstraction (i.e. only the Compiler class needs to know about the Parser, the whole program doesn't care about what a Parser is or what it does).

Anyway, it's been a challenge.  I'm now writing actual code based on generated templates -- just gotta figure out how to get that self variable in the python templates.

Y'all thought I had disappeared, didn't ya!

[malmoth]

My company use EA for software development and system modeling.
Even if I am a real EA fan, there are some missing features that are really annoying.
Some of the developpers in my teams says they could do with the ability to rename a class throughout the whole project and the code. I think they're thinking of Eclipse Refactoring function. And when one rename a class directly in the code, reverse engineering creates duplicates class in the model. That also is boring.
Personnaly this is a minor drawback, but I am not a developper.

Comming to system development (where there is no need for code generation), the major feature here is the ability to execute the model, i.e. running state machines and checking the generated sequence diagrams. I know only one tool with that ability : Ilogix Rhapsody, that may become Telelogic Rhapsody since Telelogic recently buy Ilogix. But the licence price is 12 000$. My management staff is not ready to pay that price... for the moment. But this may change when system complexity will increase. I'm working on an add-in that could execute state-machine, but it won't replace a built-in feature.
Eventually, I would like to 'sanity' ckeck my models. That also can be done with add-ins but, then the add-in would be designed for one company rules. A built-in feature should be modular.

[«Midnight»]

You would do well to break these ideas into individual feature requests, and post them in the Suggestions and Requests board. First, check to see if there is a fairly recent thread for each. [I know that several members have remarked about name changes not propagating through the model - or the generation process - but don't know if anyone has actually made the request. I for one would second this request.]

Sparx does pay attention to what's requested. Other forum readers can add their support to a request, giving Sparx some idea of where the 'hot spots' are.

[malmoth]

Done !

You can add your vote here
http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=suggestions;action=display;num=1142542272;start=0


and here
http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=suggestions;action=display;num=1142541931