eadocX Support

[eadocX Support]

These are all possible extensions, but we currently have no plans to do this. We’re trying to just replace the normal document review process, not replace EA!

[eadocX Support]

Search in the help for “element feature”

[eadocX Support]

Still investigating the use of the Sparx Licence Server API, but it totally changes how eaDocX shares licences – every user who starts EA would, if we use the Sparx Licence Server, check-out a licence, and keep it for as long as EA was running, even if the user isn’t using eaDocX at all! Clearly a big change.
Other than that, we suggest trying other virtual or real servers, to find one which works. We are no nearer finding out why this happens.

[eadocX Support]

We don’t have A3 – landscape or portrait – as test cases, so i’m afraid we have no wisdom to offer.
I can say that eaDocX doesn’t know much about the target format in Word e.g. page size, as we leave that to Word documents to organise. The only setting in eaDocX which relates to this is the help we give you when creating tables which might overflow an A4 page, but this is only guidance.
Please post when you discover what happens!

[eadocX Support]

Hi Mike,
eaDocX will let you print TVs either as cells in a table or as paragraphs. For tables, there will be a drop-down of the TVs, same for Inline elements.
We get the list of TVs by looking in real-time at your model, and finding out which TVs actually exist: if one is defined e.g. in an MDG, but never used, then it won’t appear. On the basis that there aren’t any for ANY element.
If your TV list is missing one, then it may be that there is no element in your model which uses that TV.
There isn’t a single command to say ‘add all my TVs’, mainly because nobody has every asked for it.
AS for the Nodes bit, i’m seriously thinking about allowing ANY kind of EA element to have attributes/operations, as the EA meta-model seems to allow it, even in places where it makes little sense, and people keep pointing-out places – like this – where it’s useful. I’ll add Attributes for Nodes in the next release.

[eadocX Support]

I loaded up your example, and re-generated it all, and eaDocX is generating exactly the same HTML for all the tables, in terms of the requested table size. If I re-generate it with just fragments of a few tables, then they all line up perfectly. I can only put this own to Word ‘helping’.
Sorry I can’t be more help 

[eadocX Support]

Hi Jeff,
There’s a know issue with Word ‘helping’ by re-sizing columns in tables, so that’s my first guess.
If you could send me the document and an XMI of JUST the bit of your model where these elements are located, I will try to reproduce & investigate.

[eadocX Support]

Hi Richard,
I just tried this, and it seems to generate correctly in a Collaboration Edition document.
What I did:
1. created a Package, with 3 diagrams, each containing some elements.
2. moved those elements to another package (to make it a sensible test)
3. just printed the package with the 3 diagrams.
4. I got just the diagrams – as expected –
5. when I specified ‘print diagram and contents’, I again got just the diagrams – again, as expected – because there was no profile for the elements.
6. So, I created profiles for the missing element types, and now the diagram & contents get printed OK.
Maybe you missed the last step ?

[eadocX Support]

…and who’s going to READ a document this big ????

[eadocX Support]

200 SECTIONS!!!!!
If you need 200 sections, that might I humbly suggest you’re not using eaDocX correctly.
Frankly, I’m amazed it even works at all. Surely this is an unmanageable document???

All our testing is on documents with 2-10 sections.
One of the (many) issues with having lots of sections is the number of times eaDocX has to search through the Word document to check for duplicates etc.

The way intend you to use eaDocX is a add a big chunk of your EA model into a section, then exclude the bits you don’t want, either by specific exclusions, or by just not having a Profile for elements you don’t want.

[eadocX Support]

We have received this requirement a couple of times before, but have not added it because of the complexity which it will add the the user experience. That doesn’t mean we’ll never do it: we just need to understand how we can add it WITHOUT making the UI even more complicated.
We’re aware that this is how EA got so complicated – by adding more and more features which satisfy power users, but mean that ‘regular’ users get a more and more complex product.

So, if you guys can suggest:
– where and how will a user say that ‘this Profile (element type/stereotype) is for this section(s?) only
– how would this look in the ‘Profile’ tree view?
– what happens when the user changes the name of a section which has a section-specific profile?
– ..and those are just my first questions.

Thoughts ?

[eadocX Support]

There was a build problem with 3.6.3.1 – 3.6.3.3.
Please download 3.6.3.5 or higher, where this problem should be fixed.

[eadocX Support]

try now – I got interrupted – sorry!

[eadocX Support]

Thanks for spotting this – fix is now available in v3.6.3.2, now on the website.

[eadocX Support]

There were a few hours where we had the wrong Trial version uploaded. If you downloaded 3.6.3.1 during that window, then you might have the Full, paid-for version, which needs a key. The Trial version has a built-in key, with a 30-day period. Please can you download 3.6.3.1 again, and have another go ?
Thanks

[Author]

Posts