SIPOCs often require same element twice (or more) on diagram

[adepreter]

Any date about when we shall have a solution for this? (besides the weird and buggy “virtual connectors”).

http://www.sparxsystems.com/forums/smf/index.php/topic,39241.msg242691.html#msg242691

Users complain they cannot create SIPOcs because of this.

[Uffe]

In brief: no.

But you can usually achieve the desired result using instances or activity parameters.

/Uffe

[adepreter]

We don't want workarounds (e.g. creating instances)

We need clean and direct traceability between elements as we are generating lots of excel reports and governance charts.

Alain

[adepreter]

Workarounds are also not compatible with our model validation addin that uses a clean language metamodel as configuration data.

[Uffe]

Well the each-element-no-more-than-once-in-each-diagram thing appears to be pretty fundamental in EA, and I don't think we're going to see that change anytime soon.

Virtualized connectors is a workaround that's been provided to get around this limitation for certain use cases. If you're not in one of those use cases, it won't work for you and you're relegated to EA's core functionality: when diagrams get unwieldy due to the once-per-diagram limitation, work with separate diagrams or instances of elements.

And as I always advise my clients, basing a method of working or a tool adaptation on something other than the core functionality of that tool is precarious at best. You're taking on risk that way, and reality has a tendency to bite.

/Uffe

[qwerty]

When you look into the UML specs you find element-clones on diagrams. But only where they show generalizations. EA has that nice extension to show the generalization in italics (which is no UML standard). It's definitely a shortcoming of the UML specs that they do not detail how to handle those ghost element situations.

q.

[Nizam]

When you look into the UML specs you find element-clones on diagrams. But only where they show generalizations. EA has that nice extension to show the generalization in italics (which is no UML standard). It's definitely a shortcoming of the UML specs that they do not detail how to handle those ghost element situations.

q.

Whilst I concur with Uffes' point that its EA's core and might not change in near future. 

But, IMHO still referring back to UML specs may not be that relevant in the current scope of EA models, EA has tried to move above and beyond UML spec, with all the support for Business Processes, ArchiMate, Strategy diagrams, etc. , Except for a percentage of UML purists, i'm not sure how many teams are still religiously following UML specs.

EA's usage has extended far beyond just UML. For modeling the Business/application layers and having multiple instances of the same object always comes in as an expectation, we have to use some workarounds (Creating a Composite diagram, and showing the composite diagram), virtualize connector end(!!), etc, but still, we hit the limit very soon.

[adepreter]

Agree. That's what I was talking about in this post:

Simplified language definition and user experience (not based on UML profiles):

http://www.sparxsystems.com/forums/smf/index.php/topic,38934.msg241268.html#msg241268

[PJK]

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.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

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.

Hi PJK,

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.

Paolo