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