Cannot report attribute links

[Marco Schramp]

When a connector is linked to an attribute or method, I cannot report this information in a report.

I was expecting this information as a field in the section where you can document connectors (Package / Element / Connector/ Source|Target), but I couldn't find these fields.

[Geert Bellekens]

That doesn't surprise me.
The "link to element feature" is relatively new, and probably not supported yet in all areas of EA.

I have the idea that Sparx tends to release features as soon as possible, even if they are still incomplete. (see component package)

Geert

[Oliver F.]

I have the idea that Sparx tends to release features as soon as possible, even if they are still incomplete. (see component package)

Well, it is all about complexity. EA as a software product has a rather high complexity with functional dependencies and glueing all over the place where even small changes lead to even more changes to be applied in various areas. Keeping track of such things is one of the most challenging tasks in actual requirements engeneering and software architecture as I learned some while ago.

Oliver

[Marco Schramp]

Well, it is all about complexity. EA as a software product has a rather high complexity with functional dependencies and glueing all over the place where even small changes lead to even more changes to be applied in various areas. Keeping track of such things is one of the most challenging tasks in actual requirements engeneering and software architecture as I learned some while ago.

Oliver

I know, but isn't that what this tool is all about: tracability  

[marcelloh]

hihi, perhaps we could advice them in using a good tool for the tracebility gheghe.

Sorry, but this "tracebility complexity" should really not be an argument.

@Sparx:
"Eat your own dogfood"  

[Oliver F.]

Well, it is all about complexity. EA as a software product has a rather high complexity with functional dependencies and glueing all over the place where even small changes lead to even more changes to be applied in various areas. Keeping track of such things is one of the most challenging tasks in actual requirements engeneering and software architecture as I learned some while ago.

Oliver

I know, but isn't that what this tool is all about: tracability  

A fool with a tool is still a fool- you need knowledge, experience, resources, budget and complex processes to do so.
So that does not imply that Sparx is doing foolish things with their own product and it would indeed shed a good light on them if they could prove complete traceability with their own product.
On the other hand that does not mean they are not applying an adequate traceability. With augmenting complexity the chances to keep track of all dependencies are getting worse as the efforts for this are rising up.
So it is nothing extraordinary but a typical tendency in the business. It in fact would be extraordinary if they completely managed it.

Though it is not an excuse at all, just a fact.

Oliver

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I have the idea that Sparx tends to release features as soon as possible, even if they are still incomplete. (see component package)

Well, it is all about complexity. EA as a software product has a rather high complexity with functional dependencies and gluing all over the place where even small changes lead to even more changes to be applied in various areas. Keeping track of such things is one of the most challenging tasks in actual requirements engineering and software architecture as I learnt some while ago.

Oliver

While what you say is true, Oliver, it has always been my view (often expressed) that EA (as a product) is unnecessarily complex.  I have said many times, it is actually more work to be inconsistent than consistent.  So many years later, we are still paying for some early inconsistencies in the EA product.

I believe (and I'm prepared to be corrected here) EA doesn't "eat its own dog food".  I mean the UI doesn't use the API/AI to do its work (for example)...

Whether EA was, itself, modelled or not, is - in my view - a moot point (see my recent postings about the self-inconsistencies with boolean columns).  As you said in the post above, "a fool with a tool is still a fool".  Whilst not implying that the Sparxians are fools, you must concede that have a multiplicity of different boolean functionalities is foolish - especially within the same column!

I suspect that the Sparxians can't make the kinds of changes they might like/wish to make because they can't be sure of the consequences within the current architecture.

All I know is I have to allow some serious uplift in effort if I'm developing something I haven't used before in EA.  It will take me considerable time to make sure I fully understand the "foibles", "gotchas" and plain "bugs" in an area of EA I haven't been into before (or for a while).

My AU$0.05,
Paolo

[KP]

I believe (and I'm prepared to be corrected here) EA doesn't "eat its own dog food".

I suspect that you don't know what the phrase "eat your own dog food" means. EA doesn't eat anything, it's a piece of software. Sparx employees, on the other hand, make extensive use of EA during the course of our work.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I believe (and I'm prepared to be corrected here) EA doesn't "eat its own dog food".

I suspect that you don't know what the phrase "eat your own dog food" means. EA doesn't eat anything, it's a piece of software. Sparx employees, on the other hand, make extensive use of EA during the course of our work.

I believe I do...

I was trying to extend the analogy of a company using it's own products (notionally, to express confidence in them or to demonstrate that they work effectively) to the UI using the API - "in simili modo".  

One could argue if EA isn't prepared to use the API why should we?  Unlike you, we have no choice...

Paolo

[KP]

I was trying to extend the analogy of a company using it's own products (notionally, to express confidence in them or to demonstrate that they work effectively) to the UI using the API - "in simili modo".

Oh well, if you have to explain a joke it's not funny...

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Oh well, if you have to explain a joke it's not funny...

"It wasn't a joke, ..."

(with apologies to Graham Kennedy)

It was a serious comment.

I think we can leave this here...  We've made our respective points.

Paolo

Oh...  you mean you were making a joke!  On the user side of the fence it's distinctly NOT funny... (or, perhaps, "pause for hysterical laughter?")

[Dermot]

At the end of the day, in reply to the very inocent initial entry - a request for RTF reporting of 'Links to Element Features' - this has been implemeted. It is yet-to-be-released.

[marcelloh]

I must say, that I'm greatfull for that.

This was becoming a strange thread. What I find amusing, is that sometimes it has to become this, to get some satisfying answers.

One could argue about the usage of EA, and that "on the other side of the fence", those people are using it wrong. Well, I can only say : I f you make a super flexible tool, then expect that people are gonna use it in different ways than expected in to first place.
Is that wrong? I don't thing so. I like it, that Sparx uses the product itself too,
but I can say that the Sparx people are a minority ;-)
We are with many    So listen to us very carefully  

You are doing great, but you could do better too :-)

[Graham_Moir]

Hey Dermot - that is great news, thanks in advance for that !