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 - mbc

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16]
Uml Process / Re: The best way to write use cases?
« on: January 22, 2003, 06:51:04 am »
Jason and Steve, thanks for the quick replies. I wasn't wrong, when I thought my question could bring out some interesting points and opinions.

I am working on a quite small system, and maybe what I refer to as few use cases are actually detailed use cases to you.

"If that is good for code, why can't it be good for the models describing the behavior of that code?"
Because it requires that design decisions about the code are made already during requirements analysis. That, is the only objection I have to that.

Does any of you have any examples of use cases or links that illustrate what you consider large and small use cases?


Uml Process / The best way to write use cases?
« on: January 22, 2003, 04:22:33 am »
Write long scenarios in one use case, or split explicitly into several use cases using include and extend relationships?

Craig Larman ("Applying UML and Patterns") recommends the first while Constantine & Lockwood ( advocates the second approach. What are your opinions on this?

These are the points I have noted for myself:

Pros for long use cases:
1. Easy and quick brainstorming process
2. Can be on a higher level of abstraction from the user interface implementation.

Cons for long use cases:
3. Causes duplicate use case
4. Does not give a complete picture
5. Sequential description. Normally users have many choices in the order in which they carry out actions

Pros for include and extend:
6. Gives a complete picture of the use of the application (when all use cases are complete.

Cons for include and extend:
7. Forces early decisions on user interface design.
8. Not easily readable for people without knowledge of use case diagrams.
9. Not easily writable for people without knowledge of use case diagrams.

What is the best? I am leaning towards avoiding too many include/extend relationships and trying to capture typical use scenarios instead of trying to create a diagram of the whole user interface at once. I focus on reasons 1, 2, 7, and 8.

Hope to start a discussion that will give me more insight!


Uml Process / Re: Object, class in a class diagram
« on: April 15, 2003, 02:29:33 am »
Hi Jeff

"Classes" and "objects" are 2 different things. The meaning of the words are not related to whether they are used in the context of analysis modelling or design modelling.

This is from the UML spec:
A class is the descriptor for a set of objects with similar structure, behavior, and relationships.
An object represents a particular instance of a class. It has identity and attribute values.

IMO it doesn't really make sense to have an inheritance relationship between objects, because objects are what they are.

I will give you a simple example:

We could have a class called "Human" in our analysis model, which contains attributes such as e.g. birth date, height, weight, name, etc. Note that these attribute do not have values in the class. I.e. the class "Human" cannot have a specific birth date or height.

Then we make 2 classes called "Man" and "Woman". They both have inheritance relationships to "Human", because they are specializations of "Human". Each of the 2 classes could then have attributes that relate specifically to men or women respectively.

Then we instantiate "Man", i.e. we create an object of class "Man". We set the "name" attribute of that object to "Jeff". The object with name="Jeff" does not have an inheritance relationship to the class "human", but its classifier ("Man") does.

When you are doing your domain analysis modelling, you'll want to describe concepts of your problem domain in general (=classes). At that point you are not interested in specific, individual things (=objects).

Objects are suitable for modelling something specific, such as a specific person opening a specific file and printing it on a specific printer. Some people like to start with a specific case like this, and then use it as a guide to identify classifiers afterwards. E.g., maybe you know about "Jeff" wanting to open "account.xls" and printing it on "HP Laserjet". From that model of instances you can then say to yourself: "Oh, I think I need the classes "Accountant", "Spreadsheet file" and "Printer".

Personally I mostly use objects when I model interactions, i.e. in sequence diagrams and collaboration diagrams. Messages are passed between objects, not between classes, because classes are not things that actually exist. A class describes common characteristics of objects that actually exist.

I'll tell you briefly what I do:
My Analysis Model contains classes that represent real-world concepts from the problem domain. Often those classes also appear as nouns in my use cases.
When I find it necessary, I create some sample interactions between instances (objects) of those classes. The interaction diagrams help me clarify the problem in my mind.
My Design Model contains classes that will exist in the software implementation. Often these classes are taken from or at least inspired by classes in the Analysis Model. I create interactions between instances (objects) of the software classes to establish what relations are needed. Or I create a sequence diagram from a use case in order to establish what classes are needed. Still, the interaction take place between instances (objects), not classes.

This turned out quite a bit longer than I planned, and it may be too basic for you,  but it just seemed that you had classes and objects a bit confused. I hope this could help you.


Uml Process / Re: Datatype
« on: January 22, 2003, 04:18:44 am »
Asbro, you may get more replies to EA specific questions if you post them on the "General Board", instead of here in "UML Process", which focuses on process, not the tool.


Uml Process / Re: Where is Generalisation Symbol
« on: January 20, 2003, 04:42:40 am »
If I understand your question right, the "Inherit" relation is it.


Uml Process / Re: A first contribution on the PUP/EUP
« on: December 17, 2002, 01:29:08 am »
I did a google search, and somebody has already named something the "Enterprise Unified Process - EUP". I am not quite sure what it is - at the first glance it seems like he scissored all his graphics from the RUP, but I don't know. Take a look for yourself at:


Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Automation on Linux? Impossible?
« on: December 15, 2007, 04:57:24 am »
Hi all!

Has anyone had any luck using the automation interface for EA on Linux?

I have used the automation interface with great success on Windows (using Python).

I have EA running fine using Wine (version 0.9.51) on Linux (Ubuntu 7.10).

I have installed Python under Wine as well (ActiveState Python 2.5) to get the win32com module for Python.

When I try to make a COM connection from Python to EA, I get a bunch of errors.

Has anyone had any luck with the automation interface on Linux? I am interested in experiences with Python as well as other languages.

Best regards,

Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: Has anyone succeed ?
« on: September 23, 2005, 02:38:22 am »
Has anyone checked the visio puke against the XMI schema?

Apparently, there is more than one XMI schema. The Visio puke certainly isn't valid according to the UML.DTD that ships with EA. It works a bit better with some of the others here:

I still haven't been able to actually import anything, though. There seems to be some inconsistencies in the Visio puke too.


Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: Automation C++
« on: June 21, 2005, 04:03:11 am »
I am not 100% sure that I understand your question, but I think you may be talking about code generation, not automation.
You might want to search the online help for "code engineering" and "code templates".

Best regards,

Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: Automation Model as EA model??
« on: September 23, 2004, 04:40:13 am »
I have a very old XMI file from Sparx with the automation objects, but I haven't been able to find a new version of it on the Sparx website.

I also think it would be very useful for when I design my addins in EA. I would like to be able to show relations and calls to the automation objects without having to create them all myself

Sparx, please release a new version of the model. Surely, you already have the entire design in EA  ;)


Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: Addin with Vb6
« on: September 13, 2004, 07:25:46 am »
Hi Phil,

Why did you go away from the type library approach? IMO it made it very easy to create an add-in using ActiveX wizards such as the one in Delphi.

Now, I am not sure how to do it, and frankly I don't think the online help is very clear on the topic. This is a quote from a freshly downloaded chm file:
Add-ins are ActiveX COM objects which conform to a particular COM interface. This interface is defined in the type library, addn_tmpl.tlb, which is installed with EA and placed in the same folder that contains EA. (Typically this is C:\Program Files\Sparx Systems\EA).  

but in another place it says that the type library is no longer used. So what do I do instead?


A relationship matrix inside EA won't do? You can export to a csv-file from there too.
But I guess it is not exactly the kind of list you are looking for, or you might want to automate it further.


Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16]