EA 11 wishlist

[Stoppy]

25th December could be a good release date.......  

Nice shiney new toy to play with after the new year.....

Stoppy

[JdBAlten]

Just saw the latest version 2.6.0 of Archi (see archimatetool.com), they are definitely on the right track.

So an improvement to avoid mistakes:

In our course, I often make the remark to distinguish between "Delete from diagram" and "Delete from Model". How about making this choice explicit on the appropriate menu's?

E.g. the right-click menu when an element is selected on a diagram, the bottom option now is "Delete '<alias>'". Rename this option to "Delete from Diagram" and add a new option "Delete from Model".

[qwerty]

+1 (though I don't expect to see it before V13)

q.

[Geert Bellekens]

EAv11 beta is out.
Seems like they finally did something to get EA into the cloud.

Geert

[Stefan Bolleininger]

What do you mean by cloud?

Geert would you please check if you can use the "element.update()" within your addins?

I use them with user security and require_user_lock_to_edit and it fails with exception "element locked" .
It comes up while creating a new element.

Regards

Stefan

[Geert Bellekens]

Stefan,

Do you mean it is different in v11 then it was in v10?
In that case I would certainly report it as in issue.
I can't really test that easily as I don't have any add-in that creates a new element.

Geert

[Stefan Bolleininger]

It is quite interessting,

package.update() and diagram.update() works fine as ever.

but element.update() causes an exception with "Element Locked".
I suppose some things with the Broadcast events has been changed.

Do you have an addin where you are using "EA_onPostnewElement"? Does it still work?

Regards

Stefan

Issue has been reported.

[Geert Bellekens]

No, I don't use EA_OnPostNewElement

The problem I'm about to fix is the fact that they now added a new type of database -> firebird, which of course uses yet another sql dialect...
Pfff... I hate standards that are all but standard.

Geert

[shimon]

.

[shimon]

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

Hi,
I definitely agree that this is a real necessity.

There is always the option of using a few version control repositories. Each group would have its own repository. Read and write to group members and read only for all others.

This way you can have one EA repository, but would be protected from the wrong people being able to change anything in the model / package / area that they should not be changing.

The process of checking in and out of large components is slow when using VC, so I would still prefer using the EA security mechanism instead of the Version Controlled based mechanism. This would only be possible if there would be a package or model based security scheme.

Sincerely,
Shimon J.