[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [epf-dev] Refactoring of Visual Modeling packages
|
How about calling the package modeling instead of
visual_modeling? Many of the modeling artifacts, such as use cases
and business rules specifications, are textual in nature not
visual. Shouldn't we go for something a bit more generic?
- Scott
At 01:50 PM 6/19/2006, you wrote:
Hi all,
As part of implementing bug "Refactor Use-Case Model into separate
package (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=147349), I
though of creating a package called visual_modeling (under
Requirements package), following the same convention used in
Architecture and Development packages.
Another level of refactoring I though could be useful - that I would
like to ask your opinion about - is: should we put all these vm
packages together in only one package called visual_modeling? This
package would be outside of Architecture, Development and RM, but
would contribute stuff to each of them. This would offer an
all-or-nothing approach, where visual modeling is fully included in
a given configuration or not.
Please, let me know what you think. If there aren't strong contrary
opinions, I'll proceed with the refactoring.
Thanks,
Ricardo Balduino
Senior Software Engineer
IBM | RUP Team | EPF Committer
Phone: 1 (408) 863-5019 (TL: 560-5019)
www.ibm.com
www.eclipse.org/epf
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
====================================================
Scott W. Ambler :-)
Practice Leader Agile Development, IBM Rational
www.ambysoft.com/scottAmbler.html
Every organization gets the process that it deserves.
Refactoring Databases: Evolutionary Database Design
(www.ambysoft.com/books/refactoringDatabases.html) is now available.
