Messages

1

Suggestions and Requests / Re: XMI 2.1 support

« on: March 22, 2006, 04:21:26 am »

Rumours mentions a 6.X beta version April/May with XMI 2.0/2.1.

2

Suggestions and Requests / Re: XMI 2.1 support

« on: March 16, 2006, 06:10:30 am »

XMI 2.0/2.1 support has top priority in my world. The EA vs. MagicDraw war is going on, and the MagicDraw fans have now managed to sneak in that all deliveries in the future must be done in XMI 2.0.

Unless EA speeds up, we are forced to switch to MagicDraw.

3

Suggestions and Requests / Re: RTP generation options and multiple templates

« on: February 14, 2006, 07:44:49 am »

Beautiful! I love you... in a platonic way!  

4

Suggestions and Requests / Re: RTP generation options and multiple templates

« on: February 10, 2006, 04:53:18 am »

The generator options is for example the sort order of elements. Default is 'Alphabetically', but I always want 'Tree'. Is pretty irritating when generating many documents.

5

Suggestions and Requests / RTP generation options and multiple templates

« on: February 06, 2006, 07:43:27 am »

It would be nice to be able to

1. Save the RTF generator option settings so that they are always used.

2. Specify different RTF templates for different child packages within a hierachy.

6

Suggestions and Requests / RTF handling of tagged values

« on: February 06, 2006, 08:03:20 am »

There seems to be aproblem in the tagged value handling, see http://www.sparxsystems.com.au/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=general;action=display;num=1138892034

Would be nice to have it fixed...

7

General Board / Re: template binding

« on: February 13, 2006, 07:58:33 am »

Use a 'Role Binding'.

Create a collaboration diagram with the parameterized class A inside.

Then create a class B and make a 'Role Binding' association, 'pointing' from B to A.

8

General Board / RMODP

« on: March 22, 2006, 04:13:27 am »

Anyone with experience in modelling/implementing distributed systems based on the ISO RMODP standard?

In particular I'm interested in
- Caveats.
- EA based models with the different RMODP viewpoints.

But even simple thumps up/down would be appreciated.

9

General Board / Re: UML Modeling Product Wars

« on: February 13, 2006, 07:49:31 am »

In my little world the MagicDraw vs. EA battle is still raging.

I’m a convinced EA fan due to the features/price, powerful DB integration and freedom of modeling. I actually get irritated when a tool forces me to model ‘correct’ UML; I know UML, but sometimes want to break the rules to get the message across.

The MagicDraw fans are feverishly holding on to the missing XMI 2.0 support in EA. If Sparx could just do me the favor of cutting this last little straw... victory would be declared over night. Pretty Please?

10

General Board / Re: Web Service notation in UML????

« on: March 16, 2006, 06:39:12 am »

hpark; any luck?

I'm looking for a standard way of modelling services. If you found anything I would sure appreciate a post.

11

General Board / Re: XMI 2.0

« on: March 16, 2006, 06:03:02 am »

Thanks a lot. Will do...

12

General Board / XMI 2.0

« on: March 16, 2006, 03:18:30 am »

Anyone who knows whether EA will support XMI 2.0 in the near future?

I know; XMI 2.0 is not perfect, its a new version with a new world of problems, etc, etc... but my customer is pushing for a tool which support XMI 2.0.

13

General Board / Re: Incompatible XMI files?

« on: February 13, 2006, 08:06:54 am »

1) What is in your model? Structure model(s) or behavioural model(s)?

2) The link to your file needs a password...

14

General Board / Re: Specialization of stereotypes in profile

« on: February 13, 2006, 08:01:37 am »

Sorry not an answer, but a question; How did you manage to make a specialization of a specialization within the profile? I failed miserably to do this...

15

General Board / Re: Capturing Business Requirements

« on: February 13, 2006, 08:04:49 am »

As Thomas said + create your own Enterprise profile, defining a requirement class with tagged values for each field that your requirements have. I prefer this to using the standard EA requirement features, as it means my requirement model is UML, not EA specific.