RE: [epf-dev] Re: [Bug 135698] Add Architecture as an input workproductt

[Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx]

This has been an interesting discussion - thanks to those who contributed.

 

Looking at the BUP content right now, I see that;

 - in build 20060209 architecture is already defined as an optional input to Design Solution (but architect is not an additional performer)

 

but...

 

- in the last source I checked out (Saturday) - architect *is* listed as an additional performer.

 

So I guess that gets us ready for the content freeze later this week.

 

thanks all

 

Mark

Mark Dickson
SAE Practice
m 0780 1917480
w www.xansa.com
e mark.dickson@xxxxxxxxx

-----epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: -----

To: "'Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List'" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "steve" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 04/09/2006 05:53PM
Subject: RE: [epf-dev] Re: [Bug 135698] Add Architecture as an input workproductto design_solution

"An architect is an architect by any other name" - with my apologies to the
Bard...

Whether we officially acknowledge and name an architecture role or not
during development tasks, architectural decisions are still being made.
Someone will partition the system into sub-systems, someone will decide on
the technical deployment, someone will decide on the APIs. There is still an
architectural role whether these decisions are made by coercion or
consensus.  

I know UP is an architecture centric methodology, but I have never been
comfortable with the architecture role because in many projects I have
observed the architecture role lead to a caste system where there were
architects who created lovely UML models and then there were the great
unwashed masses of developers who had to try and somehow implement these
castle in sky. For a lot of projects that I have consulted to we did away
with the architectural role and created a "project engineer" who was charged
with maintaining the vision and served as both the developer of last resort
and arbitrator of disputes.

So where am I go with this? In my opinion, whether or not we specify the
architecture role as part of the development task in my mind is irrelevant.
However, what I think this discussion brings to the fore front is that we
must emphatically emphasize in the BUP that roles are just that, roles.
Especially in a small project. There may not be one person with the specific
job title of Architect, or project manager, or even developer. People will
move fluidly from roll to roll depending on the task they are performing.
This is something that we should consider building into the collaborative
principles.

Best regards,
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 1:12 AM
To: bugzilla-daemon; epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: dj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] Re: [Bug 135698] Add Architecture as an input
workproductto design_solution

Well, now that's 2 of you. Scott Ambler said the same thing, so I will
consider myself out-voted (see my earlier post in reply to Scott on
epf-dev).

My view is that there is always an architecture - it's just a matter of how
fully anf formally (or informally) defined it is. Architecture will, in some
way, always inform or constrain design activities - otherwise, design is
happening in some abstract sense, without context. I simple terms, this is
just saying that you have some idea of what you're going to do before you do
it).

The example I gave previously is that the simple decision to use object
technology (including design techniques and principles) is an
architecturally significant one, so forms part of the architecture.

Still, it's looks as though this may just be my view :-)

Cheers

Mark
Mark Dickson
Principal Architect
0780 1917480


----- Original Message -----
From: bugzilla-daemon
Sent: 04/09/2006 02:18 AM
To: mark.dickson@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Bug 135698] Add Architecture as an input workproduct to
design_solution

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=135698
Product/Component: EPF / Content





------- Comment #1 from dj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2006-04-08 21:25 -------
Agree, but Architecture should be an optional input, as in some cases there
may
be no Architecture (described). I can also imagine situations where we may
want
to describe the architecture once we have designed and implemented the
solution.

DJ



--
Configure bugzilla e-mail:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are a voter for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.

Whilst this email has been checked for all known viruses, recipients should
undertake their own virus checking as Xansa will not accept any liability
whatsoever.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and protected
by client privilege.  It is solely for the use of the intended recipient.
Please delete it and notify the sender if you have received it in
error. Unauthorised use is prohibited.

Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily the organisation.
    Xansa, Registered Office: 420 Thames Valley Park Drive,
    Thames Valley Park, Reading, RG6 1PU, UK.
    Registered in England No.1000954.
    t  +44 (0)8702 416181
    w  www.xansa.com
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev



_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev

Whilst this email has been checked for all known viruses, recipients should undertake their own virus checking as Xansa will not accept any liability whatsoever.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and protected by client privilege.  It is solely for the use of the intended recipient.
Please delete it and notify the sender if you have received it in
error. Unauthorised use is prohibited.

Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not
necessarily the organisation.
     Xansa, Registered Office: 420 Thames Valley Park Drive,
     Thames Valley Park, Reading, RG6 1PU, UK.
     Registered in England No.1000954.
     t  +44 (0)8702 416181
     w  www.xansa.com