[epf-dev] Re: Artifact: Architecture

[Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx]

Hi Ricardo
Thanks for raising this. I considered this point  when reviewing the content and I was pretty relaxed about it. The core content around the Archiecture Work Product makes it very clear that there are many ways to represent architecture - from low-fi sketches to hi-fi models and documents. Including mnultiple templates as examples emphasises the point that OpenUP does not assume the SAD as the primary representation Architecture product. This is significant for OpenUP/Basic content, as it seems natural that many people will assume that OpenUP/Basic handles this in the same way as RUP.

If we think that changes to the text are required to clarify the point that OpenUP is not prescriptive on how Architecture is represented then we should revisit that.

Cheers

Mark
Mark Dickson
SE&E Practice
Xansa
0780 1917480
*** sent from my blackberry ***

---

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ricardo Balduino [balduino@xxxxxxxxxx]
  Sent: 20/07/2006 00:27
  To: Mark Dickson; apereira@xxxxxxxxxxx
  Cc: Jim Ruehlin <jruehlin@xxxxxxxxxx>; Bruce Macisaac <bmacisaa@xxxxxxxxxx>; Denise Cook <denisecook@xxxxxxxxxx>
  Subject: Artifact: Architecture

Mark/Ana, I'd like to invite a few people
to share some thoughts on this bug: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=143185

To put others on the same page, here's
a summary of what the proposed content/structure introduces:
- discussion around representations
for the Architecture artifact - 3 different templates
        -
Architecture View, Architecture Description, Software Architecture Document
- the 4+1 views of architecture is introduced
as a guideline
- a zip file with an alternate representation
for implementation view (java example)

The discussion is:

I'm trying to keep an eye on how are
we being prescriptive and minimalist with OpenUP/Basic: 
- IMHO, having 3 templates for a given
artifact sounds to bring some ambiguity, if not formality, from a user
perspective. A user may ask "if I'm supposed to capture information,
which is the template to use? Now I have to decide which one of the three
to use, and even decide how to partition information and allocate to the
right template". I believe we should thrive to suggest informal, minimal
templates (if any) so the user has no doubt on how to capture the essential
information. Suggestions for extra information may be added as part of
plug-ins that extend the base content. 
- My take on introducing a java example
would sound appropriate in a plug-in as well, not on the basic process.
- I'm fine with a concept page on 4+1
views though, but not necessarily say that there has to be a document to
capture those views. Now that I think of it, capturing architecture in
a document is one way of capturing it, what about the old, informal white
board? or the fancy modeling tools? :-)
- I believe it is fine to have various
representations options for a given artifact, as long as they are informal
and the user chooses one of them. If document is one, I'd feel comfortable
to suggest a simple one.

Well, let's consider this as a first
round of review on this bug. I'd appreciate comments about my concerns.
And please let me know if I'm misinterpreting what has been proposed in
this bug.

Cheers,

Ricardo Balduino
Senior Software Engineer

IBM - RUP Team | EPF Committer
www.ibm.com/rational
www.eclipse.org/epf

Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx

07/18/2006 05:36 AM

To	Ricardo Balduino/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject	Uploaded patch file for 143185

Hi again

I've uploaded a new patch file for 143185 (Architecture work product).
Please apply to CVS.

kind regards

Mark

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


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


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