[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [epf-dev] Size matters...
|
Gee, you sound like my wife. ;-)
Comments below.
- Scott
On Wed, December 6, 2006 9:05 pm, Per Kroll said:
<snip>
> - Test is weak. Not many pages there.
Many January column in DDJ covers agile testing. It should be online any
day now. Once it's there, let's discuss.
> - Project management and requirements has almost all the templates. Does
> that make sense? Probably, because you typically use whiteboard or tools
> for the other packages....
Sounds about right.
> - Project management and Architecture has all examples. I think other
> areas should have examples too. OK, I have fought against investing a lot
> in examples, but I thought we had some... Can we produce one example for
> each artifact??
Examples are always important. They're often the only thing that some
people look at.
>
>
> Some more detailed comments
> - Guidance around Use Cases: 27 pages is way too much
Definitely. A few examples of how a use case evolves through its
lifecycle, some pointers, and some good references should be enough.
> - Concept: Using Visualization is empty => Remove
> - I think we can have one Concept for Mechanisms. I do not think we need
> 4; Analysis, Design, Architectural, Implementation
> - Gudieline: Design Components Representation is empty => Remove
> - Guideline: Design Visually => I think too long. Especially considering
> that we also have a Concept paper on 2 pages. I rather have us guide on
> how to do certain type of design, which may include Visual Modeling, than
> talk about Visual Modeling for the sake of visual modeling....
Agreed. I'm not sure that visual modeling is that exciting of a topic and
still struggle with how it's been separated out. I think a refactoring is
in order still.
> - Can we merge Concept: Pattern and Concept: Business Pattern?
> - Test has way too short descriptions throughout. 0.1 pages, 0.25 pages,
> ....
> - Test probably also have too few process elements..
> - Change Request: I suggest removing Concept and Guideline and moving the
> text (even extended versions of the current text) to the Artifact and
> Task. I do not think we need to explain what a Change request is, it is
> pretty obvious. Look at the artifact if you do not know.
> - Do we need more meat in project mgmt? Or is this the ideal length? Feels
> like the guidelines here are briefer than in other areas. I think
> partially because almost all of the content has been written from scratch
> versus in many other areas, a lengthier version has been shorten down...
I'd be happy to take a pass at reviewing this next week and providing
feedback. I've been yakking for awhile now about how we need to focus on
the self-organizing team aspect of OpenUP, so perhaps it's time that I put
up or shut up.
- Scott
Practice Leader Agile Development, IBM Rational
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/rational/bios/ambler.html
Refactoring Databases (
http://www.ambysoft.com/books/refactoringDatabases.html ) is now
available.