1
General Board / Re: Multiple use of elements in diagram
« on: July 13, 2017, 09:24:20 pm »
Your basic assumption is incorrect- Items being defined in EA are primarily "types" of items.
So eg. for deployments you can define a device named "router" which specifies certain attributes and behavior. However in complex environments you will certainly want to place several of these on the deployment diagram which, however, are instances of the router type you just defined.
The same applies for class diagrams. Modeling scenarios with eg. multiple credit cards the solution is not to put the credit card class multiple times on the panel but use instance objects instead.
Different example: On some occasions I had component diagrams which went too complex with all these connectors so this might lead to the temptation to have the same component being placed left and right on the diagram to clean up the mess. However this would lead to massive confusion. Therefore the correct approach here would either be to clean up the connectors mess or split the diagran in several parts with a compound component as the basis- This basically is what Geert was refering too- the problem here is lying in the way modeling is performed, not in restrictions of the tool. Often it is really better to think out of the box and improve overview and modularity instead of approaching problem with a hammer
Oliver
So eg. for deployments you can define a device named "router" which specifies certain attributes and behavior. However in complex environments you will certainly want to place several of these on the deployment diagram which, however, are instances of the router type you just defined.
The same applies for class diagrams. Modeling scenarios with eg. multiple credit cards the solution is not to put the credit card class multiple times on the panel but use instance objects instead.
Different example: On some occasions I had component diagrams which went too complex with all these connectors so this might lead to the temptation to have the same component being placed left and right on the diagram to clean up the mess. However this would lead to massive confusion. Therefore the correct approach here would either be to clean up the connectors mess or split the diagran in several parts with a compound component as the basis- This basically is what Geert was refering too- the problem here is lying in the way modeling is performed, not in restrictions of the tool. Often it is really better to think out of the box and improve overview and modularity instead of approaching problem with a hammer

Oliver