Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - dknox

Pages: [1]
Suggestions and Requests / Tree layout for realizations
« on: April 30, 2004, 07:37:17 am »
The tree layout for generalization really helps keep diagrams neat. But I don't see the same option for realization. Can 'tree layout' be made consistant for both generalization and realization?

-- dave

Suggestions and Requests / Requirements Mgt
« on: May 13, 2003, 09:55:15 am »
I'm having a bit of trouble getting started using the requirements modeling functions. When I double click on the built-in diagrams under custom->requirements, some of them open the Analysis toolbox and others open the Custom toolbox. Is this the correct behavior? Intuitively, I would think that all of them would open the Custom toolbox.

-- dave

Suggestions and Requests / Tree view extension for realizations
« on: May 10, 2003, 11:29:03 am »
Could we have the same "tree view" feature for realizations as exists already for 'generalization'?

-- dave

General Board / Meta-types
« on: July 30, 2003, 04:02:35 pm »
I would like to define a set of meta types with attributes; simple enough. But does anyone know how I can have the attributes of the meta types automagically become tagged values in a meta type instance?

Another way to look at it is, if you assign a stereotype to a class, the attributes of the stereotype should become tagged values in the instance. Is there a way in EA to have the attributes of the meta-type (that defines the stereotype) auto-populated in the instance?

General Board / Using Requirements Features
« on: May 13, 2003, 10:58:01 am »
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the Requirements features. I understand the modeling aspect, but I don't see a place where I can enter and organize requirements in a more conventional way.

The modeling aspect is nice, but I have found it difficult to organize in brainstorming sessions and requirements reviews. I usually begin modeling the requirements once the ancillary 'people' issues start to quite down. Consequently, it would be nice if I could manage requirements in a list oriented paradigm like the defects and changes lists.

It would also be very nice to have the requirements organized in a more conventional manner.  I couldn't find a report for requirements that gave me a matrix including the priority, comments, description, etc. There seemed to be only the RTF format with no specific template for a requirements matrix.

If I've overlooked something, would someone please fill me in on the details.

thanks in advance,
-- dave

General Board / Trees
« on: May 10, 2003, 11:27:22 am »
Recently there was a post that asked about displaying generalizations in tree format.  I wanted to use the same feature for a <<realize>> but didn't see the choice on the pop-up.  Could we have the feature added to the <<realize>> pop-up? Or have I overlooked something that is right in front of me?

-- dave

General Board / Change Request: UML Pattern enhancement
« on: February 17, 2003, 10:12:17 am »
Great strides in 3.51!! I started using the UML Patterns feature and was inspired to ask for this change. Could the pattern be dropped onto a diagram as a package template?

Here is my line of thought: Diagrams can get cluttered quickly. I have adopted a style suggested by the Agile Modeling folks that puts a soft limit on the number of classifier entities in a diagram. When the number climbs to around 10 or more, I begin to refactor the diagram into many diagrams each with a particular component of the whole. Patterns are a natural fit for defining reusable components. I'd like to drag a pattern onto a diagram as a package that realizes one or more interfaces.

Presently, a pattern reveals its internals when it is placed onto a diagram. This clutters the diagram and if approached from the component perspective the detail is not useful because the internals are defined in the pattern's own diagram.  The diagram that uses the package can trace to the diagram that defines the internals. The idea will probably remind some folks of an import, and there are some similarites. But, detailing a pattern as an import is not accurate.

Currently the EA pattern mechanism asks for the interface names that need to be 'renamed' for the instance of the pattern. This mechanisim can be extended in my paradigm as asking for the interfaces that will be revealed to the pattern user. This implies that the interfaces are realized by the package that encapsulates the pattern and are available for extension by the user.

As a last comment, UML 2.0 is moving toward this idea and details patterns as Package Extensions. There is also some interesting OMG work on profiles for component collaboration called EDOC. The pattern profile that EDOC defines is very much like what I have tried to describe above.

-- dave

General Board / UML Tools Catalog
« on: January 11, 2003, 01:32:22 pm »
There is a UML tool cataloge on-line at I was surprised to see that Sparx wasn't listed. Personally, I think this is a bit of an injustice. Perhaps Jeff would like the opportunity to make this oversight right?

-- dave

General Board / Code generation extensions
« on: December 31, 2002, 12:18:21 pm »
I certainly can appreciate the hard work that has gone into EA to support Microsoft and Delphi, as well as standardized langauges like C++ and Java. Nevertheless, I work in the realm where CORBA, EJB, and WSDL prevail and my customers tend to be very interested in model driven architecture.
How can I extend the code generating capabilities of EA into this landscape?
Are the code generator modules of EA a realization of the Automation framework?  
If so, then does it follow that I can build code generators using the Automation framework?

thanks in advance

General Board / Update costs??
« on: November 20, 2002, 10:22:37 am »
I noticed that support updates are free for 12 months. What are the plans to support long-term users?  


General Board / Tag magic
« on: November 19, 2002, 11:48:27 am »
As a matter of form I add the abstract tag to classes that are not interfaces but I intend to be abstract. The italics font, IMO, is not a sufficient flag for the eyes. Per the UML 1.4 spec the tag is stronger than the font.

I added an abstract tag to one of my classes and despite changing the diagram properties I couldn't get the tag to show up. I finally figured out that if I added a value to the tag it would appear in a compartment at the bottom of the class.

The UML 1.4 specification allows tags without values and assumes them to be boolean types with a default value of true. Perhaps the side-effect is an implementation detail?

The UML spec also says that class level property lists or tagged values should appear in the name compartment. Optional compartments are allowed for user-defined values, responsiblities, and constraints. Was the design decision to add the extra compartment made on an assumption that tagged values are user-defined values?

-- dave

-- dave

General Board / 3.10_503 to 3.5_577 upgrade problems
« on: November 10, 2002, 06:24:31 pm »
I'm upgrading to 3.5-577 professional from 3.10-503 professional. The Help doc indicates that there is a Upgrade wizard accessable from the Admin menu, but I don't see it. Any help appreciated. Am I just overlooking the obvious?


Pages: [1]