Hi, |
Re: DOORS Web Access 1.0 AAI Services, Textron dpechacek@sc-aaicorp.com David.Pechacek@gmail.com |
Re: DOORS Web Access 1.0 dpechacek - Thu Mar 26 08:39:56 EDT 2009 If you read the install instructions it actually impacts how you start and stop DOORS. There appears to be no "service" so that on boot, a Windows machine just runs DOORSWebAccess atop of a Webserver. No, you have to have an account LOGGED IN and running a batch file. Unacceptable given it's astronomical costs and technical limitations (no editing, please). Why does Telelogic/IBM want WebAccess to fail? |
Re: DOORS Web Access 1.0 kbmurphy - Thu Mar 26 12:20:13 EDT 2009 LOL |
Re: DOORS Web Access 1.0 Tony_Goodman - Fri Mar 27 05:16:07 EDT 2009 I evaluated DOORSNet for a company I worked for after they purchased it. We did everything to get it up and running for testing. While DOORSNet did work, the conclusion that I and others came up to was that even though we paid for it, the product was simply not mature enough for the enterprise, so we didn't use it (and believe me we had a real business reason to try). That was the official line we gave to management. What I told others was that it was a joke, and not even the funny kind. What was funny was that one manager I knew actually believed Telelogic's DOORS XT promise. |
Re: DOORS Web Access 1.0 Tony_Goodman - Fri Mar 27 05:16:07 EDT 2009 This was the original 'Anomaly' that prompted me to write my 'CpsFixAnomalies.dxl' script, that plowed through all CPs finding [a] obvious mistakes with obvious solutions and fixing them, and [b] obvious mistakes that prompted the user on how to fix them. Turns out we found other 'Anomalies' in the CPS system, 3 in all that I traced back to actual bugs; along with 2 standard hopeless ways of doing things that I likewise fixed (e.g., erasing Proposed when Using was false, and erasing both when Proposed was the same as the current Source value). Also, this 'anomaly' triggered quite the upheaval in our Review process, since DOORSNet was routinely erasing our Allocations (which was a particularly important piece of information), and the originator didn't notice, the CP reviewer didn't notice, the RCRB didn't notice, and the module owner's didn't notice; for a whopping 7 months. I was the one that noticed as my 'CheckConnections' Metrics script was finding more un-allocated requirements over time, rather than less (that is, I noticed, not the folks I was submitting the reports to). Made me wonder why we installed such a massive change policy for about 10 times the effort, to do a far less effective job then just letting the owner make whatever changes she wanted. Citrix still works best. >Louie |