| RE: [epf-dev] RE: Database Design content in OpenUP |
|
Yes, I have to agree this is a post 9/30
issue. We are starting to collect some interesting ideas which we should discuss,
debate, argue, and have a few hissy fits at a face-to-face meeting. We’re
too close to the end to do any of these issue justice. Best regards, Steve From:
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Lyons hiho, At this point less than three weeks from
our release date, I wouldn’t want to do any more than add a guideline or
two that do not significantly affect the existing content. For the scale of OpenUP/Basic, I
don’t consider the Data Model anything more than a part of the design
tuned to support that context. But perhaps we can initiate a discussion
of this during a face-to-face meeting with the OpenUP leadership after we get
through this release. I think we need to do a session on the coverage of
both data and UI in the Basic process. I support Ana’s idea that the data
model could be considered a “view” in the architecture. But
that view would still reside in the design.
---------- b From:
Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:Mark.Dickson@xxxxxxxxx] Brian I'm looking at bug 154625 - Database Modeling content in
OpenUP. I had intended simply to add a new guideline under
Development with content modified from RUP for Small Projects Data Model
description. Looking in more detail, I'd like us to consider
Do you think that the data model should be described as a
part of the Design product or called out as a product in it's own right? I tend
to think that the latter is more consistent with our overall approach. Let me know what you'd like to do and I'll crack on and
make the changes, Cheers Mark Mark Dickson
|