Auto-Route vertical AND horizontal separation?

[leonhardtk]

I'm new to Sparx EA, and running Sparx on three different networks; two use Sparx EA 14.1, and one uses Sparx EA 15.2.  We've been task to create a specific set of artifacts in Sparx, which we are able to, but there appears to be some extreme limitations which make the diagrams virtually useless.  Being new to Sparx, I'm assuming user error.  My project is to map "User" to "Task", and to map "IT Systems" to "Tasks".  This will be for many organizations and many systems.  The only "oddity" that I have to consider, is:  Actor --> Task relationships should persist through out all diagrams using those elements.  However, "IT Systems" to "Tasks" are unique to a specific organization, so those relationships should not exist outside the context in which they are created.  To that end, I've used "Boundary boxes" for the "IT Systems" relationships.  As such, I have three major issues that I've not been able to find solutions to...without resolution Sparx has limited value for displaying diagrams:
1.  When creating a relationship from an "IT System" to a task "Boundary box", I'm limited to non UML connectors (or rather, just 'dotted line' connector types).  I would like to use "any" connector type with a boundary box.
2.  When using "dotted line" connector types, there is no way to invoke the line-jumps; these are apparently only available with the "solid line" connector types.
3.  Auto-route - This issue creates our largest obstacle.  Some of the diagrams have in excess of 1200 connectors on a single diagram, which makes it not practical to manuall adjust lines whenever the diagram changes.  Auto-route seems to be the answer, but all it does is cleans up the display, but in return provides an absolutely useless diagram as all the connecting lines are overlayed on top of one another!  I've tryied monkey with the element spacing and the auto-route "Cell Size (px)" and "Element Margin (px)" but I'm unable to get the lines to separate.  Without the separation it is impossible to follow a path from a system to a task!  Attached is a small (notional) example of one such diagram.  My actual diagram might have 50+ tasks and 100+ IT Systems.  (Okay, no image, I thought I could include one here..but All I get is html tags).

Appreciate any assistance you might be able to provide!

KSL

[qwerty]

Would it be possible to use UML terminology? Or are you using some profle? And if so, which?

q.

[leonhardtk]

Would the terminology make a difference in the proposed solution?  For example, I know that the boundary box is not UML, but it is a feature within Sparx which satisfies our specific requirement.  Ideally, we come up with at solution that allows us to use the capability of Sparx regardless of the framework or methodology. 

But, I do, however admit that I am new to using EA tools, and perhaps this is relevant.  My previous EA experience is using Visio and Powerpoint!  the customer is requesting DoDAF compliant viewpoints but is asking for non-DoDAF views for this specific task.

Appreciate any thoughts on how we can make this work.

KSL

[qwerty]

Unfortunately it's difficult to follow on your path when you talk of "dotted lines" being non-UML, and Tasks - what ever they might be. Apparently, if two people do not speak the same language, a Babylonian situation will arise.

BTW: Sparx is the company and EA the tool.

q.

[Eve]

I'm new to Sparx EA, and running Sparx on three different networks; two use Sparx EA 14.1, and one uses Sparx EA 15.2.  We've been task to create a specific set of artifacts in Sparx, which we are able to, but there appears to be some extreme limitations which make the diagrams virtually useless.  Being new to Sparx, I'm assuming user error.  My project is to map "User" to "Task", and to map "IT Systems" to "Tasks".  This will be for many organizations and many systems.  The only "oddity" that I have to consider, is:  Actor --> Task relationships should persist through out all diagrams using those elements.  However, "IT Systems" to "Tasks" are unique to a specific organization, so those relationships should not exist outside the context in which they are created.  To that end, I've used "Boundary boxes" for the "IT Systems" relationships.  As such, I have three major issues that I've not been able to find solutions to...without resolution Sparx has limited value for displaying diagrams:
1.  When creating a relationship from an "IT System" to a task "Boundary box", I'm limited to non UML connectors (or rather, just 'dotted line' connector types).  I would like to use "any" connector type with a boundary box.

I think what you are seeing is the UML relationships that can be drawn to any NamedElement, which I think makes sense given that it doesn't provide any additional semantics that would allow it to be used with the other relationship types.

2.  When using "dotted line" connector types, there is no way to invoke the line-jumps; these are apparently only available with the "solid line" connector types.
3.  Auto-route - This issue creates our largest obstacle.  Some of the diagrams have in excess of 1200 connectors on a single diagram, which makes it not practical to manuall adjust lines whenever the diagram changes.  Auto-route seems to be the answer, but all it does is cleans up the display, but in return provides an absolutely useless diagram as all the connecting lines are overlayed on top of one another!  I've tryied monkey with the element spacing and the auto-route "Cell Size (px)" and "Element Margin (px)" but I'm unable to get the lines to separate.  Without the separation it is impossible to follow a path from a system to a task!  Attached is a small (notional) example of one such diagram.  My actual diagram might have 50+ tasks and 100+ IT Systems.  (Okay, no image, I thought I could include one here..but All I get is html tags).

I think you're over estimating how useful line jumps are going to be, a diagram that tries to show all of that is always going to be a cluttered mess. May I suggest that you create a diagram for each task showing all the IT Systems it uses and/or a diagram for each IT System showing all the tasks it's involved with? Between those two you're going to get all the same informaion a global diagram is going to show except if what you want to show is the mess.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

[SNIP]
Between those two you're going to get all the same information a global diagram is going to show except if what you want to show is the mess.

Don't underestimate the power of visualising the mess!

As I say, "When you can see the problem; you can SEE the problem!"

Paolo