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 - Thelonius

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15
Suggestions and Requests / Re: Package: Set As Namespace Leaf
« on: August 08, 2009, 02:16:52 pm »
Thanks for setting out the explanation of the request as completely and as accurately as you have, Uffe.

I too would like to add my name to the list of people endorsing this request.


Thanks for your comments, I am actually just off to delivery a DocGen training course for EA.

I will post some tips and tricks regarding styles and tables

There is some anomoly between the RTF styles Heading1 etc and Word Heading1 (at least in Word 2007)

If I have chosen Heading2 in RTF, then it appears as Heading3 in word and uses the settings in Word rather than in RTF. I will conduct some more tests and post the results.

This should be towards the end of the week

Phil - your tips on using the RTF editor are greatly appreciated. Why don't you fly out to Australia and do a seminar here?


I think if Sparx were to create a video presentation that showed how to use the rtf editor - I'd be able to catch on.

Just need a 10 minute or so demo of how to do it. Then I would probably be able to catch on.

But trying to interpret the documentation is ... difficult.

Candid but accurate presentation of the facts, I'd say.


Suggestions and Requests / Re: import/export of tagged values
« on: March 26, 2009, 07:54:04 am »

Does this mean when I do a CSV export of the model (or XMI export) that my tagged values aren't going to come along for the ride?


Suggestions and Requests / Re: Model DrillDown
« on: March 11, 2009, 08:40:38 pm »
Indeed the <<trace>> relationship is often used for this purpose. (btw the quote from the Sparx blurb is the exact description in the UML specs)
Another one that you could use is the <<refine>> relationship. This is maybe even more suitable to your needs.
From the UML 2.1.2 superstructure:
Specifies a refinement relationship between model elements at
different semantic levels, such as analysis and design. The
mapping specifies the relationship between the two elements or
sets of elements. The mapping may or may not be computable,
and it may be unidirectional or bidirectional. Refinement can be
used to model transformations from analysis to design and other
such changes.

As an example, consider the classical school example.
In your conceptual layer you might have a class "Student"
In your logical layer that class may be split into two classes: "Person" and "Class Registration" as on the logical level you see that the definition of a student is nothing more then a person that has registered for a class.
On the physical layer those classes could be represented by Tables.
A <<trace>> or <<refine>> relationship would go from the tables to the logical classes, and from the logical classes to your conceptual class.

Hope this helps.


Geert - thanks for that example. So - in the example you have provided of Student, etc - conceptual, logical, physical - you would not also be connecting those elements by any other connector (even if that made sense? and I can't think of an example that would make sense off the top of my head ... )

Would you put the example you have provided on a separate diagram of some kind?

Thanks again


Suggestions and Requests / Re: Model DrillDown
« on: March 11, 2009, 08:21:46 am »
I confess. I'm a UML cretin. My approach to UML is to not use any aspect of UML until I'm confident that my use of it constitutes valid UML practice.

The <<trace>> relationship sounds like it might be useful.

I've read the Sparx blurb:

The trace relationship is a specialization of a dependency, linking model elements or sets of elements that represent the same idea across models. Traces are often used to track requirements and model changes. As changes can occur in both directions, the order of this dependency is usually ignored. The relationship's properties can specify the trace mapping, but the trace is usually bi-directional, informal and rarely computable.

But can someone give me a simple 30-second example of how they use the trace dependency? Preferably using an example taken from the unfashionable business / business IT world (not a rocket-science software engineering example)?


Suggestions and Requests / Re: Move Diagram Tabs
« on: March 13, 2009, 11:01:28 am »
Same here. +1.

Me too.

However, Sparx requires users to raise a formal 'feature request' using a different part of the web site - otherwise these feature requests raised in the user fora appear to be disregarded.

Of course, if you do raise a formal feature request via the web site - your request disappears into a black hole and you hear no more about it.

This is not the case. You can post it here and file it as a feature request so Sparx does not loose track nor do we.

What do people think the new features in 7.5 are originating from? The Sparx crystal ball?  ::)

Judging the numbers of users around the world and assuming the number of feature requests from those, it should be clear that not each of those will instantly make its way into the product.
I believe most of the requests do not fall into the "no way we never gonna do this" category but into a "sounds reasonable put it on the list" folder. Such a list is of course a prioritised one and the priority depends on the demand, effort, cost/benefit relation, etc.
Besides the fact that a priority might change from release to release and it bumps up and down the list  8-)

EA is not a project where you (mostly) get payed for features but a product and product lifecycle issues differ a lot from project business ;)


You're absolutely right in everything you say, Oliver, of course. I know software development companies have "product roadmaps" that suggest the general direction that specific products are intended by the vendor to take over a period of say, two years or so.

And Sparx do demonstrate good relationships with their customers, and their customers very much reciprocate that positive relationship. I am a devout champion for Sparx EA.

And I don't expect Sparx to respond to every feature request with a personalised response saying "we are planning to implement your requested feature in Feb 2010, in release 7.6.4.

But. Where could we go with this topic?

Here's an idea.

I think it would be quite reasonable to expect Sparx to prepare a "Strategy for Product Direction" - where we - the loyal customer base - get to hear (possibly from the Sparx "Board of Directors" or "Steering Committee" or the Sparx "Product Strategist") some general statement of goals, and of what general features or capabilities Sparx perceive as being of greatest priority, and what features or aspects of the product they tend to view as being of lesserr priority.

And, of course, such a Strategy would be very high-level, notional, non-binding, indicative, ball-park, non-committal, for guidance only, your mileage may vary, if pain persists consult your doctor, etc.

Kind of like the IT Strategies that I assist my customers to write. Assisted in no small way by my use of this great tool called Sparx Enterprise Architect.


Me too.

However, Sparx requires users to raise a formal 'feature request' using a different part of the web site - otherwise these feature requests raised in the user fora appear to be disregarded.

Of course, if you do raise a formal feature request via the web site - your request disappears into a black hole and you hear no more about it.

Sparxians: it would be perceived very positively if registered users who take the time to assist in product improvement could get some communication regarding likelihood that specific product requests may ever be acted upon, some day, in future. Or even a response that says "no way we're ever going to do this" would be better than - silence.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Introduce relative source path
« on: August 26, 2008, 10:06:05 am »
It's pest or cholera now

 ;D Good metaphor. I'll plagiarize that one, if you don't mind.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Fingerprint Matching
« on: February 17, 2009, 09:41:08 am »
Hello Arnob,

Unfortunately, I think your request is well outside of the scope of this forum.

Maybe you could get advice on libraries to use from a forum focused on .Net.



Suggestions and Requests / Re: Hyperlinks to model elements in notes
« on: February 07, 2009, 09:04:37 am »
Just a suggestion, but consider being able to add hyperlinks to model elements in element notes (similar to the way you can reference document sections in text in a word doc). Of the element name changes, the hyperlink reference would be updated, if the referenced element was deleted, the deltion would be validated against any existing references and prevented. In larger models I often cross reference elements in the notes field, by name or number.

Excellent idea - here's another vote for this one - especially the automatically updated references and validation!

I'm hoping this will be in v7.5 - but sounds like I'm going to be disappointed.

Please consider raising a feature request with Sparx!

Suggestions and Requests / Rendering Text Inside Process Icon - Extended
« on: December 23, 2008, 11:26:25 pm »
A small request that shouldn't be too hard to get right:

When using the 'Process' icon from the tool box palette for Extended | Analysis, can the text label of the icon stay inside the outline of the icon?

Thanks :)

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Icons for stereotypes in project browser
« on: November 26, 2008, 09:27:49 am »

Have you submitted the request - directly to Sparx via the Feature Request link near the bottom of any forum page - as Michael suggested?

I made this request some time ago. At the time I got no traction, but that could simply be due to a limited amount of user interest. One of the most effective ways to raise the perceived (by Sparx) level of interest is to make formal feature requests.

If you and other users make this request then perhaps this will be added to the feature set. Personally, I'd love to see it make the cut for EA 7.5, which will likely come out early in the new year.


Agree. And a good feature it would be, too.

Second Thought: It would be a good 'feature' if we could 'vote' on features added to that dedicated forum - so that the Sparx development team and product manager could actually get a view as to whether a feature request is desired by more people that just the requester.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15