Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jeshaw2

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47
connascence occurs between two software components when ...
  • It is possible to postulate that some change in one component requires a change in the other component to preserve overall correctness.
  • It is possible to postulate some change that require both components to change together to preserve overall correctness.
from this source

Sounds like the o'le tightly coupled dragon again.  :-/

I need enlightenment I think 'cause Paolo knows better.  ;D


I agree that change over time is a major factor.  Using systems and procedure that capture and manage change should be a part of any project.  In fact, they should be the core of a project's risk management strategies (we all know about "risk management", don't we?).

It is said that when something is measured, it is changed.  As a corollary, when something is analyzed, it is changed.
In systems development, we must not only capture and manage change, we must desire and embrace change wherever we can instigate it.  

Life is change; without it, there is no life.  Are we not all change masters?


A very interesting thread so far, but I would caution against the Systems Approach thinking (aka. the "water Fall" ontology).  If Design has a start, both an end and a sequential ordering of processes could be implied.  

Known generically as the Scientific Methodology (aka. RUP), parallel iterations are today's "Best Practice".  In that ontology, Requirements Gathering, System Design, Software Development, etc. are all timeless, parallel processes.  They began with the Big Bang and will end with the Big Collapse (I think  :-/).  Kinda like my wife's never ending shopping trip. :D Process boundaries are fuzzy, not crisp as in the Water Fall approach.

Project beginings, endings and internal milestones are management artifacts imposed on a system's process for defining points of review and approval. Process boundaries are management vehicles for assigning areas of accountability, and perhaos, modus operandi. For clarity of thinking, I like to keep the Whos and the Whens apart from the Whats, the Whys, and the Hows.

Just my descending $0.02 US


I agree with Thomas.  I view a Use Case as a protocol specification between actors and the system.  If the protocol does not change from a prior system, what new business benefits do the stakeholders gain?  Yeah, one may argue for cost reduction, but new systems aimed at revenue enhancements or operational improvements yield a bigger payback.

Suggestions and Requests / Wiki Down?
« on: March 07, 2008, 12:09:26 pm »
I can't get the login page to show.  Error 404?  :(

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Activity Based Costing
« on: January 23, 2008, 12:46:54 pm »
I was hoping Sparx Sales would chime in on this one.  I know what you are looking for, but I'm not aware of any EA add-on that will do it.  However, since the EA repository is a relational database one may access directly,  you could roll your own package if you wish.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Activity Based Costing
« on: January 10, 2008, 09:51:23 pm »
Are you asking about using EA for activity based costing of domain level activities such as a manufacturing process, or are you asking about cost accounting for software development projects driven by UML activities?

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Project Glossary
« on: January 26, 2008, 06:54:04 pm »
Yes, I am evaluating EA, and our Glossary requirements would be to group definitions into 5 different user domains.
This is a normal requirement.  If Sparks will do it for 5, they may as well do it for n groups.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Modeling Support
« on: April 30, 2007, 04:27:33 am »
Hi Bruce  :)

While I've had similar organizational thoughts, thinking deeply I see more complexity from a management perspective than I care to deal with at this time.  I'll take the high road, treating Sparks as a fully encapsulated object, and simply concern myself with their Unique Interface 8)  The implementation details are theirs to wrestle with.

I do wonder at times...Does Sparks develop Use Cases that get reviewed with Stakeholders?  If so, do they fully depend upon EA to write them? :-/

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Modeling Support
« on: April 28, 2007, 05:38:12 pm »
I share your reservation about the languages.  I was hesitant to mention any specific languages in my first post, there are, of course, more than two AOP languages.  I also recognize that generating code to weave aspects together at the byte code levels is very complex; but must I wait for that kind of code generation before I can begin to model separated concerns?  

I strongly believe that Aspect Oriented Modeling solves some significant modeling issues and that the AO community is getting close to bringing their ontology into the modeling mainstream.  Other tool developers are hard at work to implement the ontology (yes, even including Microsoft  ::)).  We don't want to be left behind; or, as  business analysts, we want to keep ahead of the early adopting programmers so that they get proper guidance. 8)

Personally, we are not interested in code generation support.  We won't be until we can get the PIM models correct, and that means being able to model cross cutting concerns, etc.  And the most important aspect modeling place to start is with Use Case Stereotypes and related elements that support aspect notations--similar to those suggested by Jacobson & Ng.  Shortly thereafter, I'll be looking for the ability to associate attributes and behaviors to named aspects so that I can easily generate diagrams (of specific concerns) without having to set element visibilities at tediously low levels of granularity.

I think the issue of concerns feeds directly into database views too.

I've been watching EA develop for 6+ years now and I always thought of EA/Sparxians to be a leading force in the modeling world, I hope they continue to sustain that leadership.  I hope that control of Sparks is not moving from the ontologists to the financial and/or marketing managers!  If that happens, I'll have to reconsider my options for, in my 30+ years of experience, that has always been the end of a good product.

Suggestions and Requests / Modeling Support
« on: April 27, 2007, 05:14:16 pm »
I think its time for EA to start providing good modeling support for:
  • Cross cutting concerns as AspectJ and Aspect.NET enter the main stream of modeling development
  • Database views,
  • Use Case Writing; and,
  • Implementation of the remaining features of the UML 2 Specification (many of which have been mentioned on this forum).

Thoughts? Votes?

Suggestions and Requests / Font size control on Association Stereotypes
« on: September 28, 2007, 02:01:14 pm »
Please implement a control to manage the font size on Association stereotypes.  I'm planning on using EA for a  Podcasted UML course, but at the current size, the stereotype text is not visible on class diagrams.  

Actually, I should be able to control the font size of everything that might appear as text on any UML diagram.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Attaching diagrams to elements
« on: September 05, 2007, 07:28:53 am »
And also extends to declared operations within class elements??

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Attaching diagrams to elements
« on: September 02, 2007, 03:47:45 pm »
Ownership, in this case being the ability to destroy...

And perhaps exclusive access to the Meronyms. Only by me may you access my parts.

However, Eric Evans (of DDD fame) does allow multiple root aggregates. Is that a factor also?

My apologies if I'm muddying up the water here.

Suggestions and Requests / Re: Attaching diagrams to elements
« on: September 01, 2007, 06:36:34 pm »
To be a composite you have to be a holonym with a partOf meronymy with your components...

I should think the composite must also have ownership of its Meronyms.  Or, are you including aggregates in this discussion as well?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47