Messages

1

Suggestions and Requests / Re: IDEA: Stereotyped Template Diagrams

« on: March 23, 2007, 06:52:49 am »

Anything that will help enforce (or at least remind the user) of good engineering practises and make our 'simulation'/'characterization' of the system we are designing more complete, will be appreciated.

I am an SQE on a medical device and, while death is not a real probability, a lot of wasted blood could be if we don't design this device so that, while the giving the operator unfettered power, it at least WARNS the operator of an unwise operation/button push.

Therefore, the more info the templates call for, and the more internal checks for consistency/contradictions, the less chance of seeing bugs embedded in the code.

2

Suggestions and Requests / Re: IDEA: Stereotyped Template Diagrams

« on: March 15, 2007, 04:50:16 am »

In German or English?  Long ago, when AI was the rage, we learned that German was the easiest language for a computer to translate, being so rules-ridden.  And Guess what? our chosen requirements language, English, is the worst.  Why?
The problem with definitions in English is that words are so context driven:  Consider the following mean everything, mean nothing words (that you should put in your Requirements Tutorial):
entity
data
phase
mode
thread
cycle
etc, etc, ad nauseum :-/
Hey that's it: let's just go back to Latin and the Good Old Days when flowcharts were all we needed.  

3

Suggestions and Requests / Re: IDEA: Stereotyped Template Diagrams

« on: March 14, 2007, 04:51:40 am »

I looked at the 'definitions', but it's AGAINST THE LAW to define concepts in their own terms.    Not really, but certainly a wee bit disingenuous or ignorant, as the case might be.   :-/
As unwise as the use of examples that use software or business terms in their example while trying to explain a concept that IS software or business development, so the cyclical use of the same terms in definitions.  And I'm sure as few of you understood that last sentence as those of us out here who try to understand concepts without examples or poor ones.

4

Suggestions and Requests / Re: IDEA: Stereotyped Template Diagrams

« on: March 08, 2007, 11:48:13 am »

Where can I find a definition of each stereotype given with the EA software?

5

Suggestions and Requests / Duplicate Names

« on: March 15, 2007, 02:34:35 pm »

   Compilers take a dim view of duplicate names.  Is there some way y'all could create a check we could run after completing our diagrams that would at least warn us of duplicate names? We need some way to offset the licensious ways of C.
Thanks,

6

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Specificity of Language

« on: March 09, 2007, 06:25:26 am »

Excellent reponse !!!
At this point it bothers me that EA is duplicating the same freedom/problem with C, that it allows you to do anything you want.
Are there ANY rules or controls in EA?
We've got two classes, pump and reservoir that I've discovered have two stereotypes 'active instance' and 'external mechanism'.  Shouldn't EA at least warn the author that he has assigned two different stereotypes to the same class?  If we used the 'Generate Code' feature, which one would dominate, and does it even matter?  Calling into question the entire purpose of <<stereotype>>!!

7

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Specificity of Language

« on: March 01, 2007, 05:37:26 am »

The problem: I have been a software engineer for 35 years, back when we were still called 'programmers'.  One horrible bugaboo was the mistakes made by various programmers working different areas of a huge program, calling their variables by a name identical to someone else's, unknowingly.  For that reason, 'public' and 'private' was coined: identifying to all concerned that this was a GLOBAL name/address broadcast to the whole program and the 'private' held its value only as long as that module that named it was working on it.
With that background, I am sensitive to any redundancy in nomenclature and have to wonder if it's deliberate.
Or, like C, is it giving you the freedom to hang yourself, as has been said.
I'm going to try and run this down later today.  The software engineer who wrote it is an excellent worker, and might have a deliberate reason for the identicality.

8

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Specificity of Language

« on: February 28, 2007, 12:24:15 pm »

Related to this question is the ability (weakness?) of the tool that allows you to name a STate identically to its Method.  You don't have to but you can.  I have a State named "LockCovers" and a method named "LockCovers" and nothing to tell me nay.
On the other hand, I understand why I have a state diagram named 'PUMP' and another state diagram named 'BOWL' , each with the substate oval of 'Idle'.  But if I were to code it, it would be the 2 separate states of  Pump_Idle and Bowl_Idle.  No problem with that at all.    This other situation bothers me, which brings up the question, "How do I turn on the error checker?"  The old Rational Ada machine would correct you as you went with its WhatDidIMeanToSay syntax checker, but don't guess EA has gotten around to that yet.

9

Suggestions and Requests / Specificity of Language

« on: February 28, 2007, 06:53:14 am »

I really don't mind that you can't spell 'realize'    but some of your 'explanations' are incomprehensible, possibly from cutting and pasting errors.
When you're trying to learn a new tool, this is maddening.
For example,  Definition of 'include relationship':  A relationship between two use cases in which one use case 'includes' the behavior. This is indicated where there a specific business use cases which are used from many other places - for example updating a train record may be part of many larger business processes.
I can finally grok this meaning, I think, but we are software engineers, where specificity is crucial to avoid implanting bugs that won't be caught by test.

10

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Obsolete UML within EA (from the new standard)

« on: March 12, 2007, 08:06:48 am »

   so although the EA literature implies that it is UML Standard (updated) compliant, we should not believe that.

My further question, is whether the standard means that these terms are no longer constrained by their definitions, or are indeed 'obsolete', as stated.  The latter does not seem feasible, since 'thread' is a part of our software language, our way of communicating a certain behavior of the code.
That scary sentence preceding this table needs further amplification.    English is a horrendous language for communicating rigorous concepts. And that sentence needs a whole bunch of caveats!!!  

11

Suggestions and Requests / Obsolete UML within EA (from the new standard)

« on: March 09, 2007, 08:43:08 am »

I"m looking up 'thread' for a UML definition, and although it is used all through the standard, this is what I find last:
This is scary:UML Superstructure Specification, v2.1.1 695

Changes from previous UML
The following table lists predefined standard elements for UML 1.x that are now obsolete.
:oChanges from previous UML

Standard Element Name Applies to Base Element «access» Permission «appliedProfile» Package «association» AssociationEnd «copy» Flow «create» CallEvent «create» Usage «destroy» CallEvent «facade» Package «friend» Permission «invariant» Constraint «local» AssociationEnd «parameter» AssociationEnd «postcondition» Constraint «powertype» Class «precondition» Constraint «profile» Package «realize» Abstraction «requirement» Comment «self» AssociationEnd «signalflow» ObjectFlowState «stateInvariant» Constraint «stub» Package «table» Artifact «thread» Classifier «topLevel» Package

12

Suggestions and Requests / Enumerated Types and Constraints

« on: March 09, 2007, 07:30:15 am »

The Users Guide should have more entries within it: 'sort', for example.  And the definitions, like the old DEC manuals, some warnings and contrasts.  By way of definition, enumerated types can be set up in the same way that constraints can be, just different formats.
e.g.,  Bowlspeed: enum= 120, 270,300
or e.g.,
active: bool, sensorGroupID: enum
And now a
Constraint: {BowlSpeed = 120,370,300}

What is the difference? If I generate code from this design, I should know the effect.  Is one (constraint) just a comment and the other (enum) imposes a control?  That difference should be explained or warned about in the Users' Guide. (If there is no difference, shame on Sparx.) :-/

See
Constraint:P. 75, UML Std
Enumerated Type P. 69, UML Std

13

General Board / Re: Who uses EA for requirements management?

« on: July 09, 2007, 04:26:22 am »

I found out why I could not connect EA to DOORS, using the MDG bridge.  We have EA on one server, and DOORS/with CITRIX on another server, neither of which are the server that my account is on.
so I'll be getting a DOORs database on my desktop, and then hopefully figuring out how to bridge to DOORS.  anyone got any ideas?  How do you give it the path, when you only get 'Connect to DOORS' as an option?
Thanks
Alice Brown

14

General Board / Re: Who uses EA for requirements management?

« on: July 06, 2007, 10:38:39 am »

  [glb]Why can I even see the ReadMe file on the MDG add-in trial version?[/glb]I am only given the initial screen, yet I have installed the Add-in on the server where EA resides.  I get a screen wanting a key to be added, which I have never been given.
I have both databases open: DOORS and EA, yet I cannot even see Options on the Add-Ins pulldown.  I have Add-Ins/DOORS/Help and that's it.
What's missing?  And how do I get it?
We're not relating.

15

General Board / Re: When does EA ever say, "You done wrong&am

« on: March 19, 2007, 04:58:46 am »

Yes Mike, reins, often referred to as a user interface these days. A traditional way of controlling neigh sayers.

Just thought I'd join my forebears, the
English, and throw in two syllables where we Americans think one will do, in a coulourful way, of course.  'Reigns', 'reins'...what's in a word, other than it changes the entire meaning.  Extrapolate that to 'cycle', 'mode' and 'phase' and tell me the difference.  Watch out!!!!  Your assumptions may counter someone else's without a strict definition, i.e. a Glossary that should be found at the beginning of each of our specs.  Your 'network' and my 'network' are NOT the same, whether spelled 'network' or 'netwourke'.