Composite (?) Component Question

[ssands]

Hi all,

I have a component with included sub-components. I want to display compartments in the containing component, along with the sub-components.
However, when I try this, the sub-components either obscure the operations (the compartment I want to show) or they have to appear below the operation.
I thought (hoped), that there would be room above the compartment to hold and display the sub-components.
Does anyone have an idea on how to do this?
(We've spoken about using Shape Script, but I'd like to avoid that if possible).
Thanks,
Stu

[KP]

Your Component can have a structure compartment - select the Component and Ctrl+Shift+Y - but unfortunately it always appears below the operations compartment.

[ssands]

Thank you.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Your Component can have a structure compartment - select the Component and Ctrl+Shift+Y - but unfortunately, it always appears below the operations compartment.

OK, so I enable the structure compartment for a POU (plain Old UML) Component.  What qualifies a subcomponent to appear in that compartment?

Searching for "structure compartment" in our magnificent new help system returns NO results.

Paolo

[RoyC]

Try searching for Structured Compartment.

Also see:

http://sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/13.0/modeling_tools/add_custom_compartments_to_ele.html

and

http://sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/13.0/modeling_tools/compositeelements.html

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Try searching for Structured Compartment.

Also see:

http://sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/13.0/modeling_tools/add_custom_compartments_to_ele.html

and

http://sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/13.0/modeling_tools/compositeelements.html

Why doesn't Structure Compartment ALSO find Structured Compartment?

If there is a field called Structure Compartment (build 1309), then I should be able to search for that name in the help and get a hit.

Paolo

[RoyC]

The search is a text-string search, not a sounds-like search, so it won't report 'Structured' with a d (ed c is not the same as e c).

However, the Help is wrong. The term should be 'Structure Compartment'. With abject apologies, I have corrected it in the three topics in which it exists. Not sure when this correction will surface in the released Help.

[qwerty]

Structure is a full substring of Structured. And as we all know the help search is using "silly-search" since it finds all kinds of unwanted substrings and almost never what the seeker wanted

q.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Structure is a full substring of Structured. And as we all know the help search is using "silly-search" since it finds all kinds of unwanted substrings and almost never what the seeker wanted

q.

Hi qwerty,

I think you've misunderstood what Roy was saying.

If I had just typed "Structure" I would have got "Structured"  but because I typed "Structure Compartment" the direct string search can't find "Structured Compartment".  This is LESS THAN OPTIMAL!

The NEW Help is NOT using "silly-search".

Paolo

[Paolo F Cantoni]

The search is a text-string search, not a sounds-like search, so it won't report 'Structured' with a d (ed c is not the same as e c).

However, the Help is wrong. The term should be 'Structure Compartment'. With abject apologies, I have corrected it in the three topics in which it exists. Not sure when this correction will surface in the released Help.

What form did the abjection take?

Paolo

[qwerty]

You won't tell me that the search is looking for the full text? The "match all words" drop down suggests, that it splits into single words beforehand. (Sorry, mixed that with the forum search which itself was not able to locate this very post by searching for "structure match")   )

q.

[RoyC]

>>  What form did the abjection take?

Oh, the usual. Banged my head on the floor, threw ashes over myself (still sneezing) and wore an extremely uncomfortable potato sack (I think there were a couple of small potatoes still in it).

[Paolo F Cantoni]

>>  What form did the abjection take?

Oh, the usual. Banged my head on the floor, threw ashes over myself (still sneezing) and wore an extremely uncomfortable potato sack (I think there were a couple of small potatoes still in it).

So it didn't take the form of:

Wow, the users need a decent search mechanism - that, at least, works like most smarter modern searches!  Let me put in an URGENT feature request on their behalf! 

Paolo

[KP]

>>  What form did the abjection take?

Oh, the usual. Banged my head on the floor, threw ashes over myself (still sneezing) and wore an extremely uncomfortable potato sack (I think there were a couple of small potatoes still in it).

So it didn't take the form of:

Wow, the users need a decent search mechanism - that, at least, works like most smarter modern searches!  Let me put in an URGENT feature request on their behalf! 

Paolo

Such feature requests always carry much greater weight when they come directly from users.

[Glassboy]

>>  What form did the abjection take?

Oh, the usual. Banged my head on the floor, threw ashes over myself (still sneezing) and wore an extremely uncomfortable potato sack (I think there were a couple of small potatoes still in it).

So it didn't take the form of:

Wow, the users need a decent search mechanism - that, at least, works like most smarter modern searches!  Let me put in an URGENT feature request on their behalf! 

Paolo

Such feature requests always carry much greater weight when they come directly from users.

Would a request for free licences for industry champions carry any weight? :-)