I realised recently that some of the Application System Structure Diagram funtionality available in MEGA 2009, in conjunction with the System Oriiented IT Architecture Module, is no longer available in MEGA HOPEX R3.
This concerns the functionality to add a Message to an Exchange Contract . In MEGA Version 2009 it was possible to add a Message to an Exchange Contract in-situ. That is, simply select the Exchange Contract, invoke the Context Menu, New -> Message (see relevant attachement below). This approach is elegant because of its user friendliness.
In MEGA HOPEX 2 further diagrams must be opened to achieve the same results:
The Messsage in the scenario described above for MEGA Version 2009, can only be added in the MEGA HOPEX R3 Exchange Diagram.
Clealy, the HOPEX approach is more complex and not user friendly. Question to all the MEGA Technical Consultants out there: What is the rational for the aforementioned regression on the HOPEX Platform? Is it really an intended feature, or rather bug which crept into the product.
Thanks in anticipation,
Solved! Go to Solution.
You have an option, "Exchange contracts (protocols) modeling before MEGA 2009 SP5 R7" in "Compatibility -> Others" folder, to activate the message creation from the exchange contract…
But we don’t recommend this creation mode. The exchange contract can be described by the BPMN Notation where we make distinction between exchange contract (protocol) and exchanges.
Message-flows (replacing Messages) apply only in Exchanges.
You have more details in SOIA Training.
I wish to thank you for your reply. In fact, It is exactly the sort of Workaround I have been looking for, and I am happy that this can be solved via the Compatibility Options.
In most scenarios I use Exchange Contracts as you recommend belo: That is, Messages within an Exchange Contract are bounded by Exchanges. This approach is in accordance with the establised SOA-Frameworks, and therefore the changes regarding this in MEGA HOPEX are fully justified.
However, from a useability perspective there are scenarios where Messages may be appended ot an Exchange Contract informally. This is where I think the workaround comes in handy.