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 - sargasso

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 94
The signature works exactly according to design.  The desings where singed off by the steakholders and all constructibles executed singe that thyme concorde to thje appropriace prequiremints.

Clear, am I myself making?


OMG, I am definitely in here.

Object oriented modeling, then aspect oriented modeling and now IRONY ORIENTED modeling.  More, more, now!
 :) :) :)


IIRC, I posted a diagram here about a year or more ago showing that you can include in a diagram several "images" that appear, diagrammatically, as the same thing.  It's just that EA thinks they are NOT the same thing.

If I recall even more so, two of the diagram images were, in a modelling sense, exactly the same entity. EA didn't think so.

With less recall, I have some belief, that two of the entities were the same thing (according to the the entity UUID) and thus it was possible to (with trickery that I can't remember) actually con EA into having the same entity twice on a diagram.

Can't remember how, when or why. Don't care much anymore.

a case CAN be made for allowing more than one "image" of the same item on the diagram.

yes, Yes, YES !!!!

UML has never (in my knowledge) stated that you cannot have the same model element more than once in a diagram. In fact, they have consistently done it themselves over many versions of the spec. What they have said, explicitly, is that any representation of the same element in a diagram "refers to the same damn thing" (my quote).

There is a good point brought out in this discussion.  That the diagram could unintentionally become a spiderweb of lines between objects. So, here's a proposal: the first instance of an entity in a diagram becomes the "natural" entity and any other instances become "shadows".  However, the modeler should be able to move a link between any diagram instance of the entity an another.
This would allow me to simplify so many diagrams!!!

BUT!  The original caveat still applies.  If the entity is a classifier, then the shadow objects "shall be" shadows of the classifier, if an object then the shadows shall be shadows of the object entity - not another instance.
The responsibility of the modeler in maintaining the rationality of the diagram is theirs, according to and with UML, not according to certain lifeforms from planet Creswick!  :)

(damn ye, ye woke me up agin!)

[L. con- + nascentia birth, fr. nascens, p. pr. of nasci to be born.]

1. The common birth of two or more at the same tome; production of two or more together. Johnson.

2. That which is born or produced with another.

3. The act of growing together. [Obs.] Wiseman.

Ya know, I kinda like it.

Sort of like the product and the specification are developed at the same time.  Like the idea and the reality mature together and synergistically.

Prob'ly be a good idea for a methodology  ???  :o

Arrh, someone will probably come up with that sometime.

as ever, cynically yours

... most consistent, insistent and obsistent use of the abstruse concept merynominomy (whatever)  ;D


Mega culpa! OK OK mea culpa.

I was just trying to illustrate the type of problem we see at the "end" of the project [as a tester].  It has been patently  obvious to many that, over the life of a   p r o j e c t  , that "thangs quite oftend and ginrally" (sic) change.  Some of these things are well understood in the SE world, things like budgets and constraints, and frequently even the "P" word, policy.  

I suppose, all I'm trying to say is, for the sake of your own sanity, consider why documentation has failed this craft before.

To me it's not because it was not well structured.  Further, I have read through ALL of the last three pages looking (yet again) for "good ideas". Yet I am still not convinced that the "structured analysis" approach is feasible. Every day that work I see trade offs, concessions, bitter and sometimes "better" arguments about ....

   getting better value to the "user-floor"

Some ten years ago I read "whatisnames" (1) treatise on usecases and the more and more that I get up in the morning and head off once more to do "battle" with the same old lack of communication between the "receivers" and the "providers" of IT systems, the more I believe and see what he was trying to say:

"I just want to make a phone call"  
"What's a phone call"
"I just want to talk to Grandma"
"So, you want us to build a device, that will, given the incumbent Government develops the necessary infrastructure, legislates and empowers the defined demographic to intitiate and maintain (until such times as the medium is disconnected by either party, such parties including the initiator, the recipient and the infrastructure provider) a mechanism for the transmission of vocal communication between two parties ...

...bugger that, bugger the wolves, I'll just walk through the deep dark woods.

yours, in the hope that in 2008 we can talk with the "customers" better (or at least better - like )

(1) Shaddup Paolo, I DO know what his name is

'probly just the cycle bit ?
"like a circle in a circle,
like a spiral in a wheel"

or, like whatever...


[As a tester]
Well y'all, ya know, its all very good and well to have a reel good set of bloo-prints to build this here chookshed.  But ya know what I reckon? I aint seen one blooprint set yet that matches the construction, 'cept for the set used by the builder himself and covered in pencil, crayon, mud and chickensh*t.
[/As a tester]

Now, therein lies the crutch of the problem.  ;)

Between the dream (SRS) and the reality (the software delivered) lies a devil ... time.  And over time, things change.  Things like priorities, costs, estimates, budgets the weather, the government, decisions on what "I" really meant as "that requirement" and all those things that were "givens" at the start of the project ... like the delivery platform for instance.  (Ed: tautology?)  Maybe even things like "consistency" change, who knows?

[As a test manager]
Dramatis personnae
Pete (an esquire, commanding a view of his quarter acre)
Pam (Pete's significant other)  
Bob (a builder)

Act I, Scene I : Pete's Kitchen, one Saturdee arvo
(FX) Dialtone, digital dialing then ringtone (off)
Pete: Aw, g'day Bob, I wan'cha to build me a chook shed
Bob (O/S): Yeah? No probs, Pete.  How big?
Pete: Ooh, about 16 foot by twelve foot.
Bob: Yeah OK, I'll come round tomorra about lunchtime and give ya a quote.
Pete: OK mate, see ya then.
Bob: OK
FX: (Quick fade)

Act I, Scene II : Pete's backyard, "tomorow".
Bob: So, where do ya want the shed Pete?
Pete: Over here, near the back door.
Bob: Yeah OK. By the way, how many chooks ya got?
Pete: 'bout a dozen, I s'pose.
Bob: Well, I suppose we'll have to get Council permission then.  But that shouldn't be too much of a problem. I mean, there's no construction diffo's.  By the way, what's that  they're building next door?
Pete: Aarr, dunno. I think he's a vet or sumthing.
Bob: Yarr OK, anyway I'll get young Bob to knock up a cupla drawin's to go to tha Council. Should only take 'im a cuppla days or so.  I reckon we can knock this off for, say, eight or nine hundred bucks or so.
Pete: Ar, you beaudy! That's what I reckoned, too.  Let me know when you can start.
FX: Fade out with upbeat theme.

Act II, Scene I (some weeks later) : Pete's kitchen
FX: (O/S theme suggesting distant storm clouds, fade in to ..)
Pam: (Drumming fingernails on formica bench top) You! Just what exactly, are you doing.  What and why the hell are we spending money on Bob the builder!  Our kid's need braces, I'm still driving that bomb, and the neighbours are complaining about Bob's kid continually parking his ute on their lawn, what is he doing here anyway.
Pete: He's just measuring up the block for the chookshed.
Pam: The chookshed, the damn chook shed, all I asked you was to get off your damn arse away from the footy and go to the supermarket and get a dozen eggs for the kid's lunches.  What ever possessed you to decide we needed a chookshed.  Jeesurs can't you just for once understand that we are trying to run a family here!
FX: Phone rings
Pete: Got it, yeah hello.
Bob: (O/S)  G'day Pete. We got a little problem with th' shed.  It looks like we gotta put in extra drainage to satisfy the Council.  And it looks like we oughta move it away from the kitchen an' over in front of the pool.  But I reckon that we should be sweet if we don't strike any other problems.
By the way mate, I'm gonna have t' get a bit of a pump from ya on this project, can ya give us a advance of a cuppla grand? There's a lot of people I need to keep onside to get this one through?

Act II, Scene II (in the front yard, outside Pete's house. (In the driveway as a matter of fact))
Pam: C'mon kids get ina car!
FX: Mobile phone ringing, dog barking, 12225db plane landing  overhead
Pete: (into phone) Yeah what?
Bob: G'day mate, listen.
Bob: I reckon we gona have to do something about those foxes.
Pete: What "cloudy" foxes?
Bob: Well, ya know that there's been a ...
FX: 6.23^10db jet engine sound
Bob: ... so I reckon we're going to ha' to reee-assess the basic safety precautions ...
FX: several dozen Challenger launches combined with the dog biting child number three.
Bob: so, you OK with that?
Pete: OK with what? Oh sh*t I forgot to get that "Section 3" you needed, .. never mind, I'll call you tomorrow.  By the way, we're still going with your $800 price aren't we?
FX: Something like Krakatoa exploding, Mercury's orbit intersecting our's or at least a small supernova.
Bob: ... so you OK with that too?
Pete: Listen, I'll have to call you in the morning. Don't do anything until then, OK?
FX: Sound of dead phone connection (???)

Act III, Scene I (many weeks later)
FX: (O/S theme suggesting an evil or at least very bad news, say a courtroom as the judge dons the black kerchief)  

.... some may call me a cynic :-)

FX: Fade in to reprise of original kitchen scene with Dialtone, digital dialing then ringtone (off)
Pete: Aw, g'day Bob, I wan'cha to build me a chook shed
Bob (O/S): Yeah? No probs, Pete.  How big?
Pete: Ooh, about 16 foot by twelve foot.
Bob: Yeah, no problems mate. I'll get our young Julia to drop round tomorra about lunchtme and get the paperwork started, I reckon we'll have it done come Michealmas. By the way, 'ow much d'ya reckon ya can pay for this project.

FX: Fade ... to black, ... or white, ... or just another day.

merry Hanukah

p.s. I may revise this.

Revision the first: Yes I know it's obtuse
Revision the second: Act II Scene II

(Since I was asked)

In general, I concur with Keven's viewpoint.

In fact, on reflection, I concur with most of his observations.  I always find, when faced with "issues" of this type, to go back to whatshisnames original definition of use cases.  They "had" a clarity and a defined scope, viz "what" and not "how".

(Aside) As far as "when" is concerned, I presume you mean "on what external stimulus is the use case invoked".

Pundits to the left of me, pundits to the right and here I am, stuck in the middle with UML  (apol)


Suggestions and Requests / Re: Website: add links to Community
« on: October 11, 2010, 09:36:33 pm »
a picture of a lot of people standing in a group...

Sounds, exactly like the last eight places I have worked.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Feature request: Confirm close
« on: August 21, 2010, 06:21:03 pm »

Are you sure you want that option?
[Yes] [No] [Help]

This is the second last time I'm going to ask!
[OK] [Cancel] [Abort] [Exit] [Suicide]

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Select multiple "things" on a diagra
« on: September 10, 2010, 11:22:06 pm »

The head of the ZparxZystems customer relationship centre today re-iterated
their long-standing position on the likelihood of the global mega-corporation
responding to consumer demand.

Well, I've little else to do (while waiting for mulitple select), so I may as well chop lolcats hehehe

p.s. I suppose I'd better attrib the original  :-[

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Select multiple "things" on a diagram
« on: September 09, 2010, 11:25:40 pm »

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Select multiple "things" on a diagra
« on: May 31, 2007, 03:35:54 am »
[glb]Mulltiple selection[/glb] sigh
[glb]Links are people too![/glb] sigh

Down low and on the side.

(the real) bruce

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 94