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 - Glassboy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 75
31
Actually, it usually means that's what you asked for. It's not intrinsically wrong so there's no reason for EA to report it as an error.
:-X

Some kind of syntax checker would be nice, but it does have a pretty niche audience.

32
General Board / Re: Empty tags of a class not shown in diagram
« on: September 20, 2018, 09:48:02 am »
So just to be clear...
Technically, when you apply a stereotype to an element, you create an instance of that stereotype, which references the target element (a property). The tag is a slot referencing the property for that element, and the tagged value is zero or more instances of the property type.
I think my soul died a little.

33
Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Re: EA Integration without Add In
« on: September 19, 2018, 01:08:18 pm »
Running EA as service is almost impossible (though there a rumors that LieberLieber has some kind of solution).

Because it's not a daemon, it's an obese client application.

34
Bugs and Issues / Re: EA repository performance on Oracle db
« on: September 17, 2018, 06:55:57 am »
So, although it might be possible to tweak the database for EA, I've never come across a happy EA + Oracle user.
Most of them switch to MySQL or SQL Server at some point and are much happier after the switch.

I did have a file of suggested optimisations for Oracle but I appear to have lost it.  It ended up being easier to switch to MSSQL than to get an Oracle DBA's time to tinker.

35
"in titulo, ergo sum" (with apologies to Rene)
I like the Billy Bragg cover.

36
I'd suggest two things.  Firstly the larger view may satisfy a desire you have but may not be the best communication tool.  Secondly don't start at that point.  See if you can create a number of A4 landscape views of the major application components and the application services they serve.  Once you have those print them all out and see if you can add application collaboration elements in a way that make sense.

Then and only then jump up to your wacky strategy level capabilities.  You might find that your capability map might be better as a mapping of capability to application function, or to technology function if you are consuming web services.  It will also allow you to include missing functions that are not being provided but are needed for the organisation to have the capability.

Let's just say for the sake of the discussion that I have done those A4 views (full transparency, I have done some but not all) and, more importantly, have traceability from capabilities through business services & processes down to application services and the underlying components.  These are great to understand, analyse and discover impact - and architects love them.  But for other stakeholders they are often too abstract and too theoretical - they don't think in models, they understand what they can see and touch.  They understand capabilities, processes and applications / systems but they don't always 'get' what an application function or a business service is.

Yeah well what you are coming across is the fact that the claim that ArchiMate is an "enterprise architecture" notation is complete bullshit.  To get a sense just how incomplete it is have a look at the EBMM (http://motivationmodel.com/).  Nick left Microsoft and started his own company so the conversation we were having about the next version dried up (for example a business role may require a licence or a warrent which then traces back to a legislative edict).  But you can get a grasp from the ontology as it stands now, just how many gaps exist in ArchiMate (like modelling what people use products for).   

You don't have a model or element problem, you have a viewpoint problem which is fairly typical with ArchiMate.

That's a fair comment, and I will happily admit that I am stretching both Sparx and Archimate in my attempts to create views for a variety of stakeholders - architects and technicians but also a non-technical, executive audience.  My goal was to build a 'business friendly' set of views to communicate the implications of the current architecture, supported by the more detailed models.  I'll also admit that I have tried (and failed) to do this in the past with other tools and have always ended up needing to revert to providing a Visio / PowerPoint layer over the top due to various different limitations with the views achievable. Frustratingly I am very close to achieving what (I think) will work, but there are just that couple of limitations that make it not quite achievable.

The key at that level is less is more, especially in the structure elements.  Stick to only those "moving parts" that everyone knows about.  Make sure you have your detailed views to show when needed to illustrate you understand the environment (there are lots of shit architects out there that cause scepticism in business users).

37

38
General Board / Re: Multiple Models in one SQL Server database
« on: September 12, 2018, 11:59:33 am »
Now I am thinking about if working with one modell which holds this number of files is
not working well and asking our IT to create 100 databases on this SQL Server is not good eather.

No, you could quite happily convert each of your eap files to a root node in a SQL database and it would work fine.  It might look a little messy but you could solve that by creating a content meta-model.

39
You are correct, it is isn't a model or element problem, but a viewpoint problem.  However to solve the essential problem - how to show more than one rendering of an item on a diagram hasn't changed.

Sure but I'm yet to see any instance where it was really needed for ArchiMate, as all times I have seen someone claim they did they were creating a Frankenview.

40
Bugs and Issues / Re: V1426 & 1425 "Information Flow" - where I Find?
« on: September 11, 2018, 08:05:51 am »
Yes, we have used "Information Flow" for many years (before my coming). We used "items Conveyed" to indicate certain things. It is a pity that they suddenly started to stick to such standards, at the same time not "facilitating" such a simple thing as building a list of the most used things in eg "Quick Linker" - Scripting is not easy to build

It's not a pity, it stops people complaining that ArchiMate isn't UML because that got boring after the 20th or 30th time we heard it. :-)

41
Bugs and Issues / Re: Toolbox with extended stereotypes
« on: September 11, 2018, 08:02:26 am »
Does anyone have similar experiences? Am I doing something wrong, or is there a bug in the profile helper for toolboxes.

I don't think the helper has ever created the second connection to the base metatype.

42
I'll experiment a bit with the View specifications, but it now looks like I have no choice but to define my own diagram type.

The EA diagram types don't map to a particular ArchiMate viewpoint so it wouldn't be a bad idea to create diagram types that do, and that contain appropriate toolboxes.

43
Yes, I could create multiple Application Components, one for each of the Capabilities.  I could call each of them "SAP ERP" (or some variant), I could even establish a formal relationship between these and the 'real' "SAP ERP". Then I could place these all on the same diagram.  But these elements genuinely represent the same thing, their sole purpose is to make the diagram work - there is no value having them in the model.

You don't have a model or element problem, you have a viewpoint problem which is fairly typical with ArchiMate.  It also sounds like you are creating the SAP ERP archetype but you want to mix it with other archetypes.

I'd suggest two things.  Firstly the larger view may satisfy a desire you have but may not be the best communication tool.  Secondly don't start at that point.  See if you can create a number of A4 landscape views of the major application components and the application services they serve.  Once you have those print them all out and see if you can add application collaboration elements in a way that make sense.

Then and only then jump up to your wacky strategy level capabilities.  You might find that your capability map might be better as a mapping of capability to application function, or to technology function if you are consuming web services.  It will also allow you to include missing functions that are not being provided but are needed for the organisation to have the capability.

44
Before I can go any further, I need to pick a stereotype -- but I have no idea which one I should pick. Then I need to pick a base class, apparently.

Have I missed the documentation that explains how to proceed beyond this point?

I generally just look in the MDG and find what they have extended.  It's also been discussed on the forum enough that you should find it by searching.

45
It's like you don't bother to read what people reply to you with.

1) Communication is the responsibility of the communicator - if someone doesn't understand what you say, and so asks questions to clarify what you mean, then the fault is yours not theirs. If your response is going to simply be "you're not listening to me" then the value of discourse and the opportunity to really share knowledge is gone.

<sigh>  I'll repeat myself.

In ArchiMate the most practical method of modelling can be to model an archetype and then elements that realise the archetype.   

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 75