MDG need to display provenance

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Since an MDG addin has to be installed into each repository, there should be a display of the provenance so one can de-install then re-install to get a later version.

Perhaps a context menu entry: Show Provenance - which would show the version number and source file.

Paolo

This shouldn't be a voting matter, but it starts now anyway...

[KP]

Specifically which addin are you referring to? All the ones I currently have installed have an About command which displays version information.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Specifically which addin are you referring to? All the ones I currently have installed have an About command which displays version information.

Neil,
The add-in is the CORBA IDL  The About dialog doesn't show the version.

However, the About dialog should also show the source file.

Import date wouldn't hurt either...

There should also be an About menu item on the technology itself in the Resources window.

Paolo

[Eve]

The CORBA IDL addin will prompt to upgrade the version installed into the model if the addin version is more recent.

This doesn't mean that a version number wouldn't be a good idea though.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

The CORBA IDL addin will prompt to upgrade the version installed into the model if the addin version is more recent.

This doesn't mean that a version number wouldn't be a good idea though.

Version number isn't a good idea it's necessary.

Component provenance is one of the greatest causes of failure in these kinds of loosely coupled systems.  We need to be able to identify from a configuration management standpoint exactly which versions of which components are in use in a given instance and when versions work with which.

It's also important to know the source of a component.

Install date is a good idea, but it's not necessary.

Paolo

[Paolo F Cantoni]

The CORBA IDL addin will prompt to upgrade the version installed into the model if the addin version is more recent.

This doesn't mean that a version number wouldn't be a good idea though.

Simon,

I just got a message from the CORBA IDL technology:
This model has an old version of the CORBA IDL technology.13Would you like to update it from version 1.02 to version 1.01?

(I assume the 13 is just a bit of unfinished C++ coding for a line terminator)

This bears out the problem I mentioned...  The message doesn't make sense.
I have no idea what the current version actually is - I can't assume it's 1.02 as the latest CORBA IDL download from the EA website says it's 1.01.
(if it's referencing my "munged" XML - where I tested the Interface/Class stereotyping - then I've set that to 1.01a)
There is no "effective date" against the add-in which indicates the "real world" date on which this version was effectively published.
I have no notion of how EA determines which version is later/earlier.

In addition to the version number.  The technology add-ins should have an effective date which determines which version is later/earlier.  They should also have a source URL to determine authorship/provenance.
These 3 values should be available on the About dialog.

In the meantime, can you indicate the basis on which EA is making this assertion?

Finally, is it possible to look into the DB to determine what the version is there?

TIA,
Paolo

Votes...?

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Bump...

Any ideas anyone?  Shoud I say Yes or No?

Paolo

[«Midnight»]

Several MDG add-ins have "hokey" version numbers. What's worse, they don't seem to agree with the version numbers embedded in the executable or dll files. Nor are they necessarily the same structure (in the sense of consistent 'xx.xx.xx.xx' shape) between revisions.

Serious attention to this would really help, even if it meant re-releasing all the current ones with only this change. There should be something as stable as the version and build numbers in EA itself. The MDG versions don't have to match up to EA versions - of course - but they should be as dependable.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Several MDG add-ins have "hokey" version numbers. What's worse, they don't seem to agree with the version numbers embedded in the executable or dll files. Nor are they necessarily the same structure (in the sense of consistent 'xx.xx.xx.xx' shape) between revisions.

Serious attention to this would really help, even if it meant re-releasing all the current ones with only this change. There should be something as stable as the version and build numbers in EA itself. The MDG versions don't have to match up to EA versions - of course - but they should be as dependable.

Couldn't, and didn't, say it better myself...  

Paolo