Project Guidelines

[Jesmond]

Dear Members,

I just started using EA professional. I have browsed the several white papers and tutorials, in addition, also purchase the Zircom Mentor add-in for UML mentor and EA introduction.

I have a few points I wish to put forward:

1. I would like to see a "Project Structure Guidelines" to give a best practice approach in defining root level points, package tree structure for model, views. As an example, I examined the example EA project supplied with version 3.6, and the latest 7, and the structure is very different. I understand that perhaps one example is showing an actual software design project, and another is illustrating EA features!

2. Following from point 1, I believe that this might be subject to the discipline chosen by the modeller. For example wheter to use RUP/UP, Agile??, XP. Personally I am looking into OpenUP, AgileUP methodologies. I have noticed the ICONIX discipline which also have add-on to the product. However I am not familiar with this methodology.

I would appreciate any other point of views!

Regards,

Jesmond

[thomaskilian]

Jesmond,
we had quite a few discussion around a good project setup. I found one very old thread wher Jaime posted a good structure that started me. My current project structure is very different from the first one and per project I find that you have to follow a different approach. EA is very flexible in that respect. That is the good thing. The bad thing is that you won't get a useful "follow these steps and you're done". More or less the discussions came all to that conclusion.

[Jesmond]

Hi Thomas,

Thank you for your insight. Deep down, I sort of expected this, however as you have pointed out, this could be very useful for those who are starting out! Perhaps if there are more EA project examples, diverse examples rather than big full features ones.
My current situation, for example, I have to extend the functionality of an existing application. Should I reverse engineer the existing model, and start another root node for the extensions?

Thank you for your input.

Best regards,


Jesmond

[Paolo F Cantoni]

My current situation, for example, I have to extend the functionality of an existing application. Should I reverse engineer the existing model, and start another root node for the extensions?

Hi Jesmond,

That's effectively what we do.  We stereotype the reverse engineered model «PSI» (for Platform Specific Implementation) and the new (design) model is the «PSM» (for Platform Specific Model).

We first create the PSI then we export it and then re-import it into the PSM, stripping GUIDs, thereby creating a clone of the PSI as the starting point for the redesign.  We then (re)factor the PSM for the new requirements.

As the new implementation evolves (toward the new PSM) we RE again; and then we can compare and contrast the two models.  In our case, where we don't do any coding ourselves, we can thereby validate that the implementation is tracking the design correctly.

HTH,
Paolo

[size=0]©2007 Paolo Cantoni, -Semantica-[/size]

[Jesmond]

Hi Paolo,

Thank you for your observations. But I am afraid you have lost me there! Do you refer to MDA transformations? I am still an entry level user for the product, and I guess you have a few years of experience.
On another not, I just came to a practical example for a template posted on this URL by a Microsoft engineer http://realworldsa.dotnetdevelopersjournal.com/pleumlone.htm

Perhaps this could be an idea for Sparx to setup a template projects for specific application or discipline.

Any further ideas?

Regards Jesmond  

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Hi Paolo,

Thank you for your observations. But I am afraid you have lost me there! Do you refer to MDA transformations?

Hi Jesmond,

No, they aren't transformations - since they are both at the same level of applicability.  However we are using MDA-like types.

You can compare PSM with PSI, you must transform PIM to PSM.

HTH,
Paolo

[Jesmond]

Thanks Paolo,
I must say that the problem right now is too much information! Again coming back to the "getting started" syndrome. I guess it's too easy to get side tracked!

Again on the topic of templates I located yet another project used in the recent Modelling 2007 conference by Ben Constable COO of Sparx!:
http://www.modeling2007.com/speakers/sparx_tut_eaproject.eap

I still think that a "learn by example" approach can be very helpful! Perhaps the EA Admin. can take note.


Regards to all,

Jesmond

[thomaskilian]

Jesmond,
the problem is simply: there is no simple example. Just take a blank model and start working. It always takes a couple of months to get you in the *almost* right direction. You will fall in a lot of traps where you will moan "If I only had know that before". We all had that experience.

If you could afford this: take the service of a consultant or a training. That migh help you much more.

And another tip: Google for ICONIX (they are also present on Sparx' site). They have a tutorial CD that helped me really much as they have a nice way to avoid the Analysis Paralysis. IOW a short way to the goal.

There's so much to say - much too much. Simply start and when you fall into a trap then ask.

And as Euler said to the Russian Czar: there is no silver bullet for mathematics. And none for UML methodology.

[Jesmond]

Hi Thomas,

I do understand your point! Perhaps it's just the beginner's frustration, combined with the deadlines that adds to the pressure and to the quest of the holy grail! Well I guess as you have pointed out, it's better to get started and just do it.
I am aware of ICONIX, I did have a look at their product offers, however I decided not to proceed for this first project for a couple of reasons. Namely, ICONIX uses a modified UP/RUP methodology, which I had not heard of until I visited Sparx website!, and I do not have the time for this first project! delivery deadlines again! However, I will consider that after this assignment is over, in about 3 weeks time.

Thanks once again.

Regards Jesmond

[thomaskilian]

You're welcome! Just if you come across a new hole (or whenever you fell into one) just come back with a question. You will have quite good response here in the forum.

[Stringer]

I just started using EA professional. I have browsed the several white papers and tutorials, in addition, also purchase the Zircom Mentor add-in for UML mentor and EA introduction.

Where did you find purchase link for the Zicom Mentor add-in? All I can find from their site is the regular version which doesn't work with EA as supposed. Also, the site and product there is dated at year 2004 which makes me belive that they don't even exist anymore..

[«Midnight»]

Quite a mystery!

The appropriate link used to appear on the Sparx site, so you could do everything from there. It seems to have vanished.

On the Zicom site there is an FAQ page that states that the EA version is different from the Windows version. However, there seems to be no further mention. The EA version certainly does not appear on the Pricing, Products, or Downloads page.

David

[thomaskilian]

http://www.zicom.com.au/zicom/

[Jesmond]

Hi "Stringer",

Please note that zicom EA Introduction is based on EA 6.5, although most concepts are still valid. I am not sure about their plans to update, I have asked the question to support, but I did not get a planned release date!

Additionally I am curious why their link has "vanished" from the Sparx site? Is that of any relevance, i.e. how much is Zircom committed to maintain this product for EA?

On the whole, I think the product can be of great assistance to entry level users in the UML notation.

Regards,

Jesmond