Multiple use of elements in diagram

[s_m_roberts]

I know this is an old thread but really - please change the message that pops up rather than maing folks raising it feel stupid.
Im frustrated by virtualizing connector ends as a very clunky work around because it doesnt work in reality - its not the answer to a situation where you want to show that an element is duplicated for convenience on a diagram to help the reader of the diagram know that there a relationship to an item that exists more than once on the diagram. We cant all work in nice small packages sometime we have to show the bigger picture (literally).

Whats wrong with "use virtualised connectors" as an answer?

Ok - heres some stuff that shows its not thought out.

The "ghost" shape that gets created is not able to be changed in appearance - its just a visual adornment on the connector really - in fact when you look at it it is still a connector
You cant find the other end that is virtualised (no jump to...); 
the fact its a "ghost" is not always visible (depends on the elemnt type so in archimate sparx try to show it by tweaking the embedded icon but of course this doesnt work for elements tha dont have this like dataobject;).
If you associate something with the ghost it hasnt associated it with the "real" element - so thats a bear pit - because you have actually associated your element with a connector not another element.

And also in archimate the whole argument about element type and instance fails (I agree with it but it doesnt help the enterprise architect who wants to represent element that it right over the other side of their diagram).

Heck in 1997 we had SSADM tools like Popkin System Architect that simply stuffed an asterisk or diagonal slash in the corner for you so you know it was a visual duplication *for convenience*).

Small rant over but Sparx you do have a habit of making your arguments based on some peculiar logic that might be sensible for certain context (eg class diagram) but doesnt work for archimate - at least remove "currently" from the error dialogue that appears and stop making us think you are doing something to address what is a basic constraint of your underpinning relational data model.

[qwerty]

The UML specs actually does not forbid the multiple use of elements. But it uses that only in exceptional cases (namely for generalization). The issue might be that UML does not have a real concept to show a virtual copy, so your asterisk suggestion should go to OMG, not Sparx. Personally I never had the need for multiple occurence of the same element. And I never used those virtual connectors (since honestly they are just a mess). Instead of having elements appear multiply I use different diagrams. And when needed (for the big picture) I make a tapestry of multiple smaller diagrams. Much better to handle and still helps giving an overview.

q.

[Geert Bellekens]

Technically there not much stopping you adding multiple copies of the same element on a diagram.

I remember doing that (as a test) using a little script.

I still can't figure out why they went to all these lengths to figure out another "solution" with the virtualized connector ends when simply allowing it seemed the obvious solution.

Geert

[qwerty]

Please, no. I also fiddled with that API way. And although it gives you multiple copies of the same element you will start pulling out your hairs when you have connectors with them. Alas, I concur with you finding the "alternative" even stranger.

q.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I have previously suggested a (to my mind relatively simple) solution to the problem in the thread: Real t_diagramobjects for Virtual Connector Ends - please, please, please? over two years ago.

I have seen no indication that this would not solve the various issues surrounding the multiple use of elements in diagrams.

Thoughts?

Paolo
Paolo