NoteLink - inconsistent with other edge types

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I'd like to link the Notes in one element to the text of the Notes in another.  I can't do that (although it would be a neat variant of the feature linked note technology).

So I create a "NoteLink" edge between two non-Notes.  Not your usual usage, I grant you, but EA lets me do it.  This allows us to write automation that will keep the origin "in step" with the destination.

I can do most things with this NoteLink - except set the stereotype.

I CAN do this by changing the type to something else, changing the stereotype and then changing back - but this is supremely tedious.

Couldn't we just let the NoteLink be consistent with everything else?

Please enable setting of the Properties Window for NoteLinks.  (even if a global setting - off by default).

Paolo

[thomas.kilian]

How many of your CCC complaints have led to a more consistent EA ever since?

[sargasso]

How many of your CCC complaints have led to a more consistent EA ever since?

meouw

[«Midnight»]

How many of your CCC complaints have led to a more consistent EA ever since?

Lots of them...

Of course each such instance requires that some other feature - even if it has to be newly created - become unique.

Those dinosaurs among you - I've been in the business too long for that designation - will remember the Jargon File. Look up "bogosity" and the laws thereof.  

David

[Eve]

The note link isn't considered as an element by EA (I can't get any properties of it at least) or UML.  According to UML it is a property of the note itself that says what elements it annotates.

Adding a stereotype to it would be somewhat equivalent to adding a stereotype to the type of an attribute, or the classifier of an object.  All three are just a reference to another element.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

The note link isn't considered as an element by EA (I can't get any properties of it at least) or UML.  According to UML it is a property of the note itself that says what elements it annotates.

Then, with respect Simon, why create a t_connector ( that is a REAL edge)?

Since EA does, it should treat it as other edges - besides which, I CAN set the stereotype - just by a roundabout means using standard EA technology.

Besides, EA supports many non-UML things - it's one of it's great strengths...

Paolo

[Paolo F Cantoni]

How many of your CCC complaints have led to a more consistent EA ever since?

So I should ask for an inconsistent EA?

I already have that and it continually causes me problems (and lost time).

Should I NOT report bugs?

Self-inconsistency is one of the few causes that is inarguable.  Consequently, is it is a powerful tool for users.  See my response to Simon above. In effect, nothing that Sparx can say (apart from - we will resolve the inconsistency), will give them an out.  Since you can't be inconsistently correct.

Since Sparx is unwilling/unable to create a consistent EA I keep going...

We get the software we are prepared to put up with.  Unfortunately, as I've said often in the forum, EA is the best of a bad lot for my (our) purposes.  So I have nowhere else to go...

To their great credit, Sparx have never attempted to gag me.  

On the other hand, they haven't said: "We get it... - just show us the places where we're self inconsistent and we'll fix them"

I still live in hope that v8 (that, hopefully, Sparx have been busy redesigning from scratch) will embody all the great aspects that are necessary for a modelling tool.  In my experience, a product with this many inconsistencies usually can't be fixed whiteout a major redesign.  So, I suspect (as Midnight says: without proof) that Sparx are unable (not unwilling) to resolve the inconsistencies using the current design.

If you find the reporting of inconsistency bugs offensive, then just ignore posts by me.

Oh and BTW, I still actively recommend EA to people.

Paolo

[«Midnight»]

Yes Paolo,

Please do continue reporting bugs. An inconsistencies as well, for those who might find some difference between the two. Don't even consider stopping.

Think of it this way, at least you are being consistent.  

David

[thomas.kilian]

If you find the reporting of inconsistency bugs offensive, then just ignore posts by me.

Oh and BTW, I still actively recommend EA to people.

Paolo

1) Not me, for sure. But others? Your karma is falling...
2) Me too

[Eve]

why create a t_connector?

So that you can control the line, setting a style, colour etc.  The fact that it is in there is an implementation detail.

The fact that you can cause a mess if you try hard enough doesn't change anything.

Changing this in the way you want would actually create a further inconsistency between a link from a note to shape and a link from a note to a line.

For the record.  I for one do appreciate receiving bug reports.  Even if I do disagree with some definitions of bugs.  I know that it's very hard to catch everything, and the assistance of everyone who reports problems is invaluable in creating a better product, and that's something I personally care very deeply about.

What I (and many others) don't like to see is rants, snide comments etc.  Those are not necessary to a bug report and do get in the way.  (Oh, and a link to a forum post does not qualify as either a description or steps to reproduce.)

[Paolo F Cantoni]

why create a t_connector?

So that you can control the line, setting a style, colour etc.  The fact that it is in there is an implementation detail.

That's understood, but in my view there's still the need to do it properly.  If NoteLinks can't have stereotypes, then stop them - that is when I switch to a NoteLink, kill the stereotype.

The fact that you can cause a mess if you try hard enough doesn't change anything.

But, with respect, I'm not creating a mess - from at least one point of view.  I wanted to solve a problem.  I wanted to use an existing technology.  I was able to use the technology - it was just cumbersome to set up.  For most of that process, EA was quite consistent, everything I had done with other edges also applied to NoteLinks.  The only point of inconsistency (from at least this user's point of view) was the ability to easily set the stereotype for the NoteLink (as with other edges). ⁽¹⁾

Changing this in the way you want would actually create a further inconsistency between a link from a note to shape and a link from a note to a line.

To which I would, of course, reply that that's one of the fundamental inconsistencies brought about by EA's current implementation...
{2000 characters.. }

[Paolo F Cantoni]

For the record.  I for one do appreciate receiving bug reports.  Even if I do disagree with some definitions of bugs.  I know that it's very hard to catch everything, and the assistance of everyone who reports problems is invaluable in creating a better product, and that's something I personally care very deeply about.

Most (but sadly not all) developers want to know what issues there are with their product.  Fixing them, of course, is in a different dimension.

What I (and many others) don't like to see is rants, snide comments etc.  Those are not necessary to a bug report and do get in the way.  (Oh, and a link to a forum post does not qualify as either a description or steps to reproduce.)

Points taken...

I shall report bugs better in future...
I shall report bugs better in future...
I shall report bugs better in future...
I shall report bugs better in future...
I shall report bugs better in future...
...

Contritely,
Paolo
⁽¹⁾ In the absence of any countervailing documentation, a program's behaviour is what it was meant to do.  That is, we (as users) have just the documentation and the program.  If the documentation doesn't say you can't do it and the program lets you, then you are allowed to.

[KP]

I still live in hope that v8 (that, hopefully, Sparx have been busy redesigning from scratch) will embody all the great aspects that are necessary for a modelling tool.  In my experience, a product with this many inconsistencies usually can't be fixed whiteout a major redesign.

Sorry, no time to join in the debate, but Joel Spolsky calls redesigning from scratch "the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make", here: Things You Should Never Do, Part I.

[«Midnight»]

OK kids,

Neil, thank you for pointing out this truism - and also for including a citation for those who need to look up the context.

Paolo, please (please, please, please...) continue to report bugs in future. And yes, IMO [H left out intentionally] the relationship between documentation and function is ironclad.

You guys are coming into agreement, albeit via very different routes. This just might work out after all.

David

PS: Let's not wait until v8 for improvement. None of us are that patient.

[KP]

Paolo, please (please, please, please...) continue to report bugs in future.

Yes, for sure. The approach that Joel does recommend in the quoted article is to fix things... one at a time. Which is what we're trying to do (although sometimes it feels like eating an elephant) but we need users to let us know us which ones hurt the most...