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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 94
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Add an "assumptions" element
« on: July 04, 2007, 12:22:40 am »
Strange as it may seem  ;) I'm going to disagree here.

Assumptions are issues, they need to be managed, owned, monitored and actioned through a project until they are resolved.  There may be assumptions that live on through a dev/deployment project. However, after deployment they are no longer assumptions they are L.A.W. constraints of the solution.

Code: [Select]
ASSUMPTION001: The maximum number of concurrent online users will be three.

Maintenance of the truth of this throughout the project could well be the responsibility of the "Assumption Management Committee"  but strangely enough I've never seen one of these committees convened.  

Keeping it in the issues log, though, and getting it raised at each and every PMC meeting tends to get its truth verified fairly quickly in my experience (and then the designers can get on with a design based in truth rather than assumed constraints).

ymmv  ;)


p.s. Oops, I forgot...
Minutes of PMC meeting #4
Code: [Select]
ASSUMPTION001: The maximum number of concurrent online users will be three, except when its 300.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: [layers within diagram]
« on: June 21, 2007, 04:41:55 am »
Alack, alas there is but one dimension in EA, that of the classifer.  In fact in UML there is only one dimension, that of the diagram plane.  What you propose is laudible and proper.  

However, I would rather we get the basic, fundamental, intrinsic, confusing, (AHEM) inconsistent flaws that exist in the current one dimension (AHEM) fixed before we embark on creating an entire new set of dimensional inconsistencies that have not even yet been dreamed of in the Sparxians philosophies.

..nuff said..
going to see if the lecky blanky has engaged itself on this  plain and cold winter solstice here in the antipodes.


side note: TK - I think you are on the wrong tack re "provided" v "required" as opposed to "realised" interfaces, I hope to get some time over the weekend to reply --- I cant find your OP and by golly, by crickey, its about -217K here  

Suggestions and Requests / Re: generate sequence diagrams from source
« on: February 13, 2007, 04:53:47 am »
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to share with us an algorithm for decoding an n-level recursive solution (e.g tower of hanoi) into a sequence diagram.  Or if thats too easy how about the "relaxed traveling salesman with holidays" solution.

In short I believe that what you are asking for is seriously impossible ( at least today  :) )

Sequence diagrams ellucidate the behaviour of a system in a particular state under a specific set of circumstances.  In order for a reverse engineering tool to create/design a complete set of behavioral models from a structural description (i.e code) it would need to understand and anticpate all possible states and environmental conditions that the system may experience.  If and when it could do that successfully neither you nor I would have any ecological use.  For then, not only could it RE it, but it could possibly FE it into sentient lifeforms that mey (probably) have no use for us.

Forgive me for the vitriol, but in three or more years of this forum I have seen the same question over and over again.  

"A" sequence diagram, regardless of the UML 2 enhancements, still cannot represent the behaviour of a system succintly and clearly for ALL possible behaviours.  To repeat myself again (tautologically speaking...) a sequence diagram is best used to investigate, analyse or resolve what the system should do under a given set of circumstances given that said system is in a particular state.  It is a design tool not a system descriptive.  

The structural description of a system i.e. the code, knows nothing of the environment is which it is operating.  I appreciate that this is a sweeping statement.  However, it is, or at least should be, a basic assumption for any developer.  Therefore, can I (the developer) anticipate the entire universe of input information and state conditions that may exist when (my) code is invoked?  From my (the architect's) perspective, not in my lifetime.  Moving on from that, are the expected outcomes of these unanticipatable conditions specifiable and realisable?  Not this side of the Styx.  

Consider this.  A web service class to return the current TOY from the operating system "clock" - no input parameters, output to be an XML document whose form is defined by a schema.  Simple eh?  Try it as an exercise.  In 20 seconds I can envisage 16 possible outcomes/behaviors.  

best wishes

Suggestions and Requests / Re: IDEA: Better FK constraint naming rule
« on: March 13, 2007, 10:12:23 pm »
[sigh] You are, [sigh] as usual right, (and [sigh] about 20 minutes ahead of me[/sigh]) [/sigh][/sigh].

Although,what I've been doing is just sub anotating the keyname  (manually) the name as

My vote (for your proposal) +++


[size=18]Sparx should only permit themselves a new major EA version number (x.zzz -> y.1) if they also do a "Paolo" on the user interface consistency each time, to remove any UI cruft.[/size]
[/b]ven zat 'appens I mey return from ze attol bikini, allors!



(p.s. my french is as good as my latin, thomas, which is to say as good as my norwegian or swedish or finnish "Denne Honne brennt.")

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Dispalying notes in notes compartment
« on: April 07, 2007, 02:20:43 am »
Get's my vote ONO. But did you put this in as an "official" request item?


Suggestions and Requests / Re: IDEA: Stereotyped Template Diagrams
« on: March 15, 2007, 10:51:47 pm »
what's an English word anyway

AFAIK "English" isn't.

'smatta anyway, wots ambiguous about engrish?

The next sentence is false.

The previous sentence is true.

b :)

Suggestions and Requests / Re: IDEA: Stereotyped Template Diagrams
« on: March 14, 2007, 12:06:30 pm »
I think  ???  I recall that some if not all the "old" standard stereotypes were, to some extent, sort-of, described in the old 1.4 or 1.5 specs.

They are, or were the last time I looked, available in the OMG  vault.

As for the new standard stereotypes, I guess you could search the OMG development areas for some commentary, but it would probably be unwise to accept that any such definition found was the truth.  Just accept them as ideas.

(As for cyclic definitions, I think all steretypes should be defined as recursive TLA's - just to keep the buzzards guessing  ;D )


p.s.  Sorry Paolo, I didn't think or mean to keep the highjack going.

Build 799
Why do artifacts render with the adornment clobbering the name.

This has ben annoying me all afternoon to the point of "totally infuriating" and I just want to know whether its been fixed yet.

This is another "simple" fix!!!  

If someone can tell me that its still a problem I will raise a duly worded fault.

bruce  >:( >:( >:( >:(

Suggestions and Requests / Re: IDEA: Feature linked Note functionality
« on: March 14, 2007, 10:03:38 pm »
Definitely a goer.  I wish I had 20c for each time I've been caught by this gotcha.


Related to this question is the ability (weakness?) of the tool that allows you to name a STate identically to its Method.  You don't have to but you can.  I have a State named "LockCovers" and a method named "LockCovers" and nothing to tell me nay.

Forgive me but I still dont realise what the problem is here.  See my other answer elsewhere.

To be pedandtic, I would have thought a specific statement of the state name would have been "CoversLocked" rather than a possibly abiguous imperative.

Let me metaphorize. (To enphrase a coinism!) If the architect draws a WC icon in the middle of the kitchen floor on your house plans and the plumber installs it there, then the model has been implemented correctly. On a rational planet, the plumber would query the model based on "common sense".  Now, to my knowledge, no CAD program will actually stop the architect placing the WC in the middle of the kitchen and so we rely to an extent on the intellect, experience and comon sense of the implementer (plumber) to recognize and query such incongruencies.

Yet we seem to want here, in a toolkit that is much more temporally immature than architectural blueprints and in an industry that has been around several centuries less than plumbing, automated (as in automaton-like) conformance to IT common sense.  Nay say I.  The UML is immature and even ambiguous, you only have to try and read the spec to find that out.  

I actually find that the relative freedom of EA from attempting to impose UML as L.A.W. one of its strengths.



By way of interest, does anyone know if Sparx has an explicit UML compliance or compliance policy notice on the website - or elsewhere?

Now I do not see that the retention of UML 1 items in the tool is a bug.  I have several clients and many models that are UML 1.  Neither I, nor they, see any need to feel that these models are incorrect.  They still work and are still maintained as UML 1.

Also, as I have said before, UML isn't L.A.W. and AFAIC the support of both spec versions is a strength.


Suggestions and Requests / Re: zxgypknly Association Ends (again)
« on: March 08, 2007, 01:41:08 am »
p.s.  Sparxians, get me the name of the fool who put this field on the form.

bruce  ;D

p.p.s. Paolo, Consistency ... Beef hooked, I just want a meaning.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: zxgypknly Association Ends (again)
« on: March 08, 2007, 01:33:16 am »
36 hours later and I'm still struggling with this.

I searched, researched and even threw both d*mn UML specs down the stairwell to see if a random search would work.

FACT THE FIRST: There is NO attribute on an Association or a Property called "Changeable", nor anything like it.

FACT THE SECOND AND THIRD: The word "frozen" doesn't appear in either the specs or OMG's website.

FACT THE IV (IMO): This, i.e. what I'm trying to specify is:

"common" "well-understood" behaviour

:P :P :P  Sour grapes

I went back on both Paolo's UI thoughts and mikes its-an-endity attribute thoughts and tried to do something from 1st principles.  It got me exactly nowhere.  Well, in fact it did get me somewhere....

It appears to me (ahem) that this property of an end is a tad confused about its own personality.  If the end is owned by a classifier, its an attribute of the classifier, therefore all its properties are (possibly, perhaps, maybe) defined by the classifiers attributes.  If its not owned (!!! [Sic] EA has the Owned attribute values of an end reversed !!!) then its a property of the endity (*)

Forgetting the latter, if the end has a multiplicity of 1 then :

  "none" appears to conform to Paolo's "the attribute is really 'Changeabilty Restriction' and 'none' means 'there is no restriction, feel free .. change the values, change the type even ... stick a blob on here instead of an integer if you really feel like it, in fact stick ANYBLOODYTHING in this attribute."

  "frozen" IMO ... possibly, maybe, could sorta go with Paolo's "set initally and stuck" scenario.  b-b-b-b-but I cant really see a use for this?

  "add-only" is meaningless (I have spoke)

OTOH 8) (possibly)

if the mulitplicity of the end is "not :1" then
   "none" conforms to the above.
   "frozen" may indicate the the set is fixed, but an instance of the set is manipulatable.  IOW "for any widget in the bag I can change its nature, but not its existence"
   "add only" means "I can shove more stuff in the bag but I can't change their nature"

(Having done that I will now set out to prove that zebra'a dont exist. ::) )

dribble, gurgle, dribble


(*) I have now discovered what an endity is.  Call me on (0088 61 2 0400 987654321) with you credit card details for  info!    

Suggestions and Requests / Re: zxgypknly Association Ends (again)
« on: March 06, 2007, 05:12:58 am »
mikewhitney, after having been hit by a lightning bolt of reality said
"Once you have created a link between two elements, there may come a time when you want to change either the source or target. Instead of deleting and re-creating the link, EA lets you change either the source or target"
I guess this setting lets you set some policy on this ...?


So you are saying that these end attributes don't really have to do with the meaning of the end, they have to do with the the meta-"ness" of the end"ity" (to coin a phrase) element.

This is getting stupid.  No reflections on you, mike, or EA intended! An attribute of an endity MUST reflect the semantics of that endity, not the meta-semantics of the language or even the modelling tool.  

Maybe I'm old, maybe I'm stupid, maybe I'm naiave. (sp? ... IQ?)  But I'm looking at an association end's attributes and I am trying to express an (IMO) simple constraint,... [glb]Thou shall't create end instances on this relationship only.[/glb] ...Corollary: you can keep on creating such ends until the Dalmation's spots all  join up, but you're using a Texta(tm) - you can't erase 'em.

On my planet, which is mainly populated by auditors, marketting consultants and telephone sanitiser's left over from someone else's (MHRIP) brilliant imagination, these issues are germaine.  I mean IKEA can do it!! No one in their right mind expects to be able to "unscrew" an IKEA "nail". ( Then again, "breathes there a man with a soul so dead that he has never" tried ... ever so gently ...ever eeevvveeerrr so gently ...more gently than ....   (anything, anything at all) ... ever ever ever tried to UNSCREW (sorry) anything more difficult than a piece of IKEA assembled incorrectly, or IN HASTE (sorry sorry) or worst of all, when your mind wasn't really ON THE JOB (I'm going to burn in hell for this
:'(  )

... suffice to say, the user in question ;D , having made the mistake of putting his "mouse" where it shouldn't have been, shall not (L.A.W.) be able to rescind such putting ;D  

Howthence, Ga`wain, shuld I model thus?


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 94