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.

Messages - «Midnight»

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 377
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Store a non-rtf file in the EAP database
« on: August 11, 2009, 10:32:57 pm »
Hi Ronan,

When I said you should request this as a feature I was referring to a 'formal' feature request to Sparx. Use the Feature Request link near the bottom of any forum page. Just fill out the form. That is the best way to get these things considered by Sparx. Of course consideration does not imply the request will be adopted...

You can leave this thread active and paste its address into the body of your request.


Suggestions and Requests / Re: Unique Element Names within Package
« on: August 11, 2009, 10:30:16 pm »
But clearing the strict UML option (or some other means) should disable this check. The result of doing so would be that EA would work as it does now.

The subject line is not long enough for a proper description....
I submitted a bug report or feature request regarding increasing the subject length.

The answer was No.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: "Nesting" Compartment
« on: April 29, 2009, 09:14:28 pm »
Now that's a wonderful idea!

I was as surprised as you Paolo.

This applies to quite a few dialogs throughout EA. There seems to be a real lack of usability engineering in this area.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: set visibility per connector type
« on: August 06, 2009, 02:30:09 am »
Agreed, and often mentioned.

Please make a Feature Request to Sparx. You can use the link near the bottom of any forum page. Perhaps if more of us do so this will reach sufficient priority.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Tests view
« on: August 05, 2009, 09:02:07 pm »
Of course you could write one test (scenario) per use case, or use case scenario. This would move the duplication effort to the use case stage, but really does not solve the problem.

My cynical side - you all knew it would pop up someday - suggests this is all part of the natural course of things. This would give the bean counters better ammunition to cut out requirements definition as being too expensive. There's been a trend towards doing the necessary work at the beginning of a project, and I know this has to be irritating the non-IT crowd. Now they can finally cut out both specification and testing. Software development would then be just that: development. Much cheaper. And since the stuff wasn't going to work anyway, why should it cost so much?

But I digress...

You are making sense Emilio. Still, I don't think this is a flaw in EA, in the sense that the product is not creating work. It is a limitation of a feature - being able to create test cases in a sensible manner - and an opportunity for improvement.

Can you (or any of the other users out there) come up with ways that the situation could be improved, while limiting the impact and scope of the change to the EA product itself?


PS: What about the third-part products out there, like RAQuest? Do any of these handle test case suites gracefully?

There are times when I go through the same contortions. The model doesn't have to be very complex before things start to move around when I'm not looking. [That must be what's happening. How else could they get lost so easily?]

Perhaps something audible...   ;)

Perhaps you should send the question to Sparx Support.

Try linking a note to the scenario. Not ideal by any means but it might let you display one scenario.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: NAF v.3 support
« on: July 22, 2009, 08:58:40 pm »
I have not seen this mentioned Günther.

There is a DoDAF/MODAF MDG Technology for EA though. Perhaps you could extend this (the MODAF part) somehow to cover the additional views and bandwidth analysis of NAF v.3. AIUI the core of NAF remains identical to MODAF, so this should be theoretically possible. I believe this was one of the design goals of NAF.

Of course whether EA will allow you to extend the MDG Technology is an open question...

Thanks Luis,

As you are certainly aware, we (the user community) are very much a part of how EA evolves. After all, Sparx can't add all the features we want unless we tell them what they are...


Hi Luis,

I certainly agree with you.

My suggestion (no pun intended) is that you make this a feature request directly to Sparx. Use the Feature Request link near the bottom of any forum page and fill out the form.

If you paste the URL of this forum thread into your request it will be easy for the Sparxians to join in any discussion this thread generates.

If you hear back from Sparx regarding the request, please post back to this thread to tell the rest of us what they have to say.


I think you can do this through the operations dialog. Use a stereotype (I think) to designate the operation as a unique constraint. Then add the columns via the appropriate tab on the same dialog.

I don't have EA open, so I'll leave you to play around with the dialog.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 377