Sparx Systems Forum
Enterprise Architect => Suggestions and Requests => Topic started by: Patrick Julian on March 22, 2013, 08:57:26 pm
-
Simple:
- Make it a pure bugfix, stability and UI usability release.
::)
-
:)
There is also a discussion running on the LinkedIn EA User Group forum on "What I'd like to see in EA V11" .
It would be great if someone from Sparx could comment on it - there are some great ideas, and so far, it's just EA fans contributing.
See http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1356&trk=anet_ug_hm
-
I am not on LinkedIn currently. Is the discussion public?
-
LinkedIn is free of charge. So the only price you pay is your personal information.
However, I fully agree with your wish. I had expressed this as a former member for years but without luck. Honestly, I'm not expecting anything in that direction.
q.
-
LinkedIn is free of charge. So the only price you pay is your personal information.
Yes, I know. Thought it might be nice for other users as well to get a quick impression w/o everyone having to create an account.
:)
-
As I'm a member it's a bit hard to test how it reacts not being a member. But I guess you need to register. Honestly, here's such a nice place that I can't understand why people choose a foreign platform for their discussions. Same goes for StackOverflow and Google groups.
q.
-
Absolutely. This seems to be the place where THE users come to play! I am on LinkedIn too but the discussions tend to go off topic very quickly.
-
:)
There is also a discussion running on the LinkedIn EA User Group forum
This is the problem referred to in a separate thread about multiple discussion forums diluting the value.
I urge Sparx to significantly improve this forum and consolidate it with the Community,
and users to make this forum THE forum
-
Simple: - Make it a pure bugfix, stability and UI usability release.
I agree, but I would like to see improvements to existing features and functionality that we have asked for for version 8, again for version 9, and are still waiting in version 10.
For me in particular
* diagram enhancements (many and varied) - I'd like to see a significant step up in diagram formatting, white board toolbox, new and expanded image library (http://www.sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/9.3/modeling_basics/importimagelibary.html), ...
* data modelling improvements
* connectors as first class citizens
* multiple selection and editing of entities
EA is jack of many trades, I'd like to see it do more of them better.
-
Upgrade of image library would be good. More avatar's and technology items would be cool.
Also the ability to use images on Archimate entities in diagrams. Seems like anything with a shapescript disables using images. I find the IT folk are okay with Archimate but the business folk and CxO's need images. The Archimate folk do talk about representing Archimate with alternative images for different audiences in one of their many papers after all.
-
Some basic UI diagramming enhancements would get me to standardize the entire company's dev team (100+ engineers/developers/business analysts) on EA.
Alas, I don't believe any of my UI enhancement requests have even been acknowledged/prioritized.
I'm not even sure that the team have a consistent view on how to improve EA.
Each release seems to include a hap-hazard selection of stuff that makes no sense.
-
Confirmed :-/
q.
-
...and then, Sparx joined the discussion, and said.....
-
How about enabling some kind of user voting on suggestions?
There is another tool I use whose vendor does this - see
http://feedback.codecollab.com/forums/4652-code-collaborator-features
as an example. Voters have 10 votes which they can apply 1-3 of on any suggestion. This forces people to prioritize what is important to them (rather than everyone voting for everything). You can move your votes and you get them back when a suggestion is implemented. It must give the vendor a very good indication of what should be in future releases.
Can this forum support something like that? Otherwise the example above uses uservoice (I guess there are others).
Mark
-
We have been asking for that for years. So the probability N for fulfilling this wish is limes N->0.
q.
-
:)
There is also a discussion running on the LinkedIn EA User Group forum
This is the problem referred to in a separate thread about multiple discussion forums diluting the value.
I urge Sparx to significantly improve this forum and consolidate it with the Community,
and users to make this forum THE forum
I've been discussing this with Sparx management recently, and they are actually working on a migration from this outdated forum platform to something new and shiny on the community site.
No confirmation about the timeline or anything, but it's good to know something is happening.
Geert
-
I've been discussing this with Sparx management recently, and they are actually working on a migration from this outdated forum platform to something new and shiny on the community site.
No confirmation about the timeline or anything, but it's good to know something is happening.
Geert
Way to go Geert
-
New feature requested: Record locking to control write access to packages
I have explored the current security control in Sparx EA and would like to propose minor changes that could lead to an increase usage flexibility that could allow large organisation to use Sparx EA with one single central repository without worrying about information being changed by the wrong people.
My proposition is to merge the functionality of both security mode and enhance it slightly in order to:
• Allow package owner to control who can modify the package user group locking and group membership,
• Allow members of that group to lock elements in order safely apply changes,
This would require additional permissions:
• Split “lock elements” into permissions
o For Package owner to set group permission to package,
o For Members to lock elements
It would require people with “Group Locking” permission to the dialog to manager group ownership (associate users to group).
The current security policies are not sufficient for large organisation to use one central repository.
-
without worrying about information being changed by the wrong people.
Which people with access to a model should that be? If one has access to the model he should be allowed to change it. Paranoia locking does not look like a feature which brings value. It rather kills the motivation of people which should otherwise use the model to communicate through model changes.
q.
-
New feature requested: Record locking to control write access to packages
I have explored the current security control in Sparx EA and would like to propose minor changes that could lead to an increase usage flexibility that could allow large organisation to use Sparx EA with one single central repository without worrying about information being changed by the wrong people.
My proposition is to merge the functionality of both security mode and enhance it slightly in order to:
• Allow package owner to control who can modify the package user group locking and group membership,
• Allow members of that group to lock elements in order safely apply changes,
This would require additional permissions:
• Split “lock elements” into permissions
o For Package owner to set group permission to package,
o For Members to lock elements
It would require people with “Group Locking” permission to the dialog to manager group ownership (associate users to group).
The current security policies are not sufficient for large organisation to use one central repository.
I agree, that would be useful.
We currently have two separate repositories just because of security issues.
We have two main projects, with to separate teams, and while we all have read access to the other projects model, we only have write access to our own model.
Here it's not just a matter of paranoia, but more to avoid accidental changes by the wrong people.
Geert
-
Here it's not just a matter of paranoia, but more to avoid accidental changes by the wrong people.
Again the wrong people :-/ If you have RLtE you need to explicitly tell EA that you are going to change something before doing it "accidentally".
The more complicated you build a security system, the more can go wrong. It will not only hinder communication, it will block it. Making EA more collaborative will not be achieved by adding more security features.
q.
-
We do use the option require user lock to edit, but that wouldn't rule out mistakes though.
The problem is that people often do without thinking, like they are on auto-pilot.
A lot of our users would probably not even notice if they were accidentally working in the wrong model.
Geert
-
You're putting oil in my fire :-) The wrong people, if they work in the wrong model without knowing. So they do the same thing in the right model: work without brain. If that's the case I'd have a simple answer: out!
q.
-
I've been discussing this with Sparx management recently, and they are actually working on a migration from this outdated forum platform to something new and shiny on the community site.
No confirmation about the timeline or anything, but it's good to know something is happening.
Geert
Well, I hope today's CSS update is NOT the promised "shiny thing". There are now three search options (there were only 2 before!?).
(And the forum page shows a separation after the Sparx logo on Safari.)
q.
-
I've been discussing this with Sparx management recently, and they are actually working on a migration from this outdated forum platform to something new and shiny on the community site.
No confirmation about the timeline or anything, but it's good to know something is happening.
Geert
Well, I hope today's CSS update is NOT the promised "shiny thing". There are now three search options (there were only 2 before!?).
(And the forum page shows a separation after the Sparx logo on Safari.)
q.
Nono, there was talk about actually migrating the forum to a new platform, and there were questions about whether or not I as a forum user would mind loosing my "status".
I responded I would be happy to give up my "status" for a forum that would allow me to search properly.
Geert
-
there were questions about whether or not I as a forum user would mind loosing my "status".
Well, at least one user has been asked this time. The last time they simply dumped it from one day to the other.
The current star scheme is useless anyway. Just you have a remarkable number of stars - and Paolo a number of non-stars :-X
q.
-
I have two requirements:
1. Enhance the diagram to make diagramming like bizagi. Really, this is my biggest competitor to getting it adopted as a corporate wide standard.
2. Create an easier way to export the information as a website. Provide a basic mechanism to allow people to extend/enhance the website generated so I can add a comment system to pages. I wrote a script that publishes the model as a website every hour.
I'll make this public if you wants it.
-
Does anyone have any information on when EA v11 will be coming, only reason I ask is it has been 12 months since the last major release with several builds following up after?
Stoppy :)
-
I don't have any official information, but my gut feeling says we can expect a beta sometime soon.
It's been three months since the last v10 release so they should be almost finished with the v11 no?
But as usual there's only silence coming from Cresswick.
Geert
-
I also have the feeling, that a new release or a beta comes very fast now. It is the end of the year :-)
What I really would like:
A more powerful workflow scripting possibility, where I can enable/disable much more dialog parts. (Phase,Version) is quite good for now - But there can be more..
And a better RTF-Editor, Report-Generator, Word/Excel-Integration, ...
Regards
Stefan
-
25th December could be a good release date....... :P
Nice shiney new toy to play with after the new year.....
Stoppy :D
-
Just saw the latest version 2.6.0 of Archi (see archimatetool.com), they are definitely on the right track.
So an improvement to avoid mistakes:
In our course, I often make the remark to distinguish between "Delete from diagram" and "Delete from Model". How about making this choice explicit on the appropriate menu's?
E.g. the right-click menu when an element is selected on a diagram, the bottom option now is "Delete '<alias>'". Rename this option to "Delete from Diagram" and add a new option "Delete from Model".
-
+1 (though I don't expect to see it before V13)
q.
-
EAv11 beta is out.
Seems like they finally did something to get EA into the cloud.
Geert
-
What do you mean by cloud?
Geert would you please check if you can use the "element.update()" within your addins?
I use them with user security and require_user_lock_to_edit and it fails with exception "element locked" .
It comes up while creating a new element.
Regards
Stefan
-
Stefan,
Do you mean it is different in v11 then it was in v10?
In that case I would certainly report it as in issue.
I can't really test that easily as I don't have any add-in that creates a new element.
Geert
-
It is quite interessting,
package.update() and diagram.update() works fine as ever.
but element.update() causes an exception with "Element Locked".
I suppose some things with the Broadcast events has been changed.
Do you have an addin where you are using "EA_onPostnewElement"? Does it still work?
Regards
Stefan
Issue has been reported.
-
No, I don't use EA_OnPostNewElement
The problem I'm about to fix is the fact that they now added a new type of database -> firebird, which of course uses yet another sql dialect...
Pfff... I hate standards that are all but standard.
Geert
-
.
-
New feature requested: Record locking to control write access to packages
I have explored the current security control in Sparx EA and would like to propose minor changes that could lead to an increase usage flexibility that could allow large organisation to use Sparx EA with one single central repository without worrying about information being changed by the wrong people.
My proposition is to merge the functionality of both security mode and enhance it slightly in order to:
• Allow package owner to control who can modify the package user group locking and group membership,
• Allow members of that group to lock elements in order safely apply changes,
This would require additional permissions:
• Split “lock elements” into permissions
o For Package owner to set group permission to package,
o For Members to lock elements
It would require people with “Group Locking” permission to the dialog to manager group ownership (associate users to group).
The current security policies are not sufficient for large organisation to use one central repository.
I agree, that would be useful.
We currently have two separate repositories just because of security issues.
We have two main projects, with to separate teams, and while we all have read access to the other projects model, we only have write access to our own model.
Here it's not just a matter of paranoia, but more to avoid accidental changes by the wrong people.
Geert
Hi,
I definitely agree that this is a real necessity.
There is always the option of using a few version control repositories. Each group would have its own repository. Read and write to group members and read only for all others.
This way you can have one EA repository, but would be protected from the wrong people being able to change anything in the model / package / area that they should not be changing.
The process of checking in and out of large components is slow when using VC, so I would still prefer using the EA security mechanism instead of the Version Controlled based mechanism. This would only be possible if there would be a package or model based security scheme.
Sincerely,
Shimon J.