Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [epf-dev] Re: [Bug 135698] Add Architecture as an input workproduct to design_solution

I agree with you, Mark. There’s always an architecture. If no one has paid attention to it then it’s a bad architecture. The absence of a thoughtful, well-defined architecture significantly increases the technical risks of a project (long-term maintenance and support, internal cohesiveness, consistency, predictability, etc).

 

We would also have to re-define the Elaboration phase if we make architecture optional, since the primary milestone of Elaboration is the validation of the architecture.

 

- Jim

 

____________________

Jim Ruehlin, IBM Rational

RUP Content Developer

Eclipse Process Framework (EPF) Committer

email:   jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx

phone:  760.505.3232

fax:      949.369.0720

 


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" <bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxx>; epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: dj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [epf-dev] Re: [Bug 135698] Add Architecture as an input workproduct to 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


Back to the top