EA 11 wishlist

[Geert Bellekens]

There is also a discussion running on the LinkedIn EA User Group forum

This is the problem referred to in a separate thread about multiple discussion forums diluting the value.
I urge Sparx to significantly improve this forum and consolidate it with the Community,
and users to make this forum THE forum

I've been discussing this with Sparx management recently, and they are actually working on a migration from this outdated forum platform to something new and shiny on the community site.
No confirmation about the timeline or anything, but it's good to know something is happening.

Geert

[skiwi]

I've been discussing this with Sparx management recently, and they are actually working on a migration from this outdated forum platform to something new and shiny on the community site.
No confirmation about the timeline or anything, but it's good to know something is happening.

Geert

Way to go Geert

[François L]

New feature requested: Record locking to control write access to packages

I have explored the current security control in Sparx EA and would like to propose minor changes that could lead to an increase usage flexibility that could allow large organisation to use Sparx EA with one single central repository without worrying about information being changed by the wrong people.

My proposition is to merge the functionality of both security mode and enhance it slightly in order to:

      • Allow package owner to control who can modify the package user group locking and group membership,
      • Allow members of that group to lock elements in order safely apply changes,

This would require additional permissions:

      • Split “lock elements” into permissions
            o For Package owner to set group permission to package,
            o For Members to lock elements


It would require people with “Group Locking” permission to the dialog to manager group ownership (associate users to group).

The current security policies are not sufficient for large organisation to use one central repository.

[qwerty]

without worrying about information being changed by the wrong people.

Which people with access to a model should that be? If one has access to the model he should be allowed to change it. Paranoia locking does not look like a feature which brings value. It rather kills the motivation of people which should otherwise use the model to communicate through model changes.

q.

[Geert Bellekens]

New feature requested: Record locking to control write access to packages

I have explored the current security control in Sparx EA and would like to propose minor changes that could lead to an increase usage flexibility that could allow large organisation to use Sparx EA with one single central repository without worrying about information being changed by the wrong people.

My proposition is to merge the functionality of both security mode and enhance it slightly in order to:

      • Allow package owner to control who can modify the package user group locking and group membership,
      • Allow members of that group to lock elements in order safely apply changes,

This would require additional permissions:

      • Split “lock elements” into permissions
            o For Package owner to set group permission to package,
            o For Members to lock elements


It would require people with “Group Locking” permission to the dialog to manager group ownership (associate users to group).

The current security policies are not sufficient for large organisation to use one central repository.

I agree, that would be useful.
We currently have two separate repositories just because of security issues.
We have two main projects, with to separate teams, and while we all have read access to the other projects model, we only have write access to our own model.
Here it's not just a matter of paranoia, but more to avoid accidental changes by the wrong people.

Geert

[qwerty]

Here it's not just a matter of paranoia, but more to avoid accidental changes by the wrong people.

Again the wrong people :-/ If you have RLtE you need to explicitly tell EA that you are going to change something before doing it "accidentally".

The more complicated you build a security system, the more can go wrong. It will not only hinder communication, it will block it. Making EA more collaborative will not be achieved by adding more security features.

q.

[Geert Bellekens]

We do use the option require user lock to edit, but that wouldn't rule out mistakes though.
The problem is that people often do without thinking, like they are on auto-pilot.
A lot of our users would probably not even notice if they were accidentally working in the wrong model.

Geert

[qwerty]

You're putting oil in my fire :-) The wrong people, if they work in the wrong model without knowing. So they do the same thing in the right model: work without brain. If that's the case I'd have a simple answer: out!

q.

[qwerty]

I've been discussing this with Sparx management recently, and they are actually working on a migration from this outdated forum platform to something new and shiny on the community site.
No confirmation about the timeline or anything, but it's good to know something is happening.

Geert

Well, I hope today's CSS update is NOT the promised "shiny thing". There are now three search options (there were only 2 before!?).

(And the forum page shows a separation after the Sparx logo on Safari.)

q.

[Geert Bellekens]

I've been discussing this with Sparx management recently, and they are actually working on a migration from this outdated forum platform to something new and shiny on the community site.
No confirmation about the timeline or anything, but it's good to know something is happening.

Geert

Well, I hope today's CSS update is NOT the promised "shiny thing". There are now three search options (there were only 2 before!?).

(And the forum page shows a separation after the Sparx logo on Safari.)

q.

Nono, there was talk about actually migrating the forum to a new platform, and there were questions about whether or not I as a forum user would mind loosing my "status".
I responded I would be happy to give up my "status" for a forum that would allow me to search properly.

Geert

[qwerty]

there were questions about whether or not I as a forum user would mind loosing my "status".

Well, at least one user has been asked this time. The last time they simply dumped it from one day to the other.

The current star scheme is useless anyway. Just you have a remarkable number of stars - and Paolo a number of non-stars

q.

[Tim Twe]

I have two requirements:

1. Enhance the diagram to make diagramming like bizagi.  Really, this is my biggest competitor to getting it adopted as a corporate wide standard.

2. Create an easier way to export the information as a website.  Provide a basic mechanism to allow people to extend/enhance the website generated so I can add a comment system to pages.  I wrote a script that publishes the model as a website every hour.  

I'll make this public if you wants it.

[Stoppy]

Does anyone have any information on when EA v11 will be coming, only reason I ask is it has been 12 months since the last major release with several builds following up after?

Stoppy  

[Geert Bellekens]

I don't have any official information, but my gut feeling says we can expect a beta sometime soon.

It's been three months since the last v10 release so they should be almost finished with the v11 no?

But as usual there's only silence coming from Cresswick.

Geert

[Stefan Bolleininger]

I also have the feeling, that a new release or a beta comes very fast now.  It is the end of the year :-)

What I really would like:

A more powerful workflow scripting possibility, where I can enable/disable much more dialog parts. (Phase,Version) is quite good for now - But there can be more..

And a better RTF-Editor, Report-Generator, Word/Excel-Integration, ...

Regards

Stefan