[epf-dev] Re: Review and Strategy for Design, visual and non-visual

["Scott W. Ambler" <swa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, July 17, 2006 10:44 pm, Bruce Macisaac said:
<snip>
> I would pretty much assume that the people following OpenUP are building
> business software that has a UI, implements some form of business logic
> using OO technology, and stores information in a database somewhere.  If
> this is a reasonable assumption, then our design process needs to reflect
> this.
> BM: While we need to support this, I think we also want to be able to
> support someone who is building an embedded system.

Agreed.  But would this be a plug in that replaced/reworked some tasks?

> In general, we are looking for a scaleable solution.   The approaches I
> can think of for supporting variation on technology are:
> A - have a general task that makes sense in all cases, and have guidelines
> to express the technology specifics; or
> B- have separate tasks for UI design, database design, application class
> design (perhaps that extend a more general abstract task); or
> Could have a main task for designing something that pulls together all the
> pieces, and allow for specialized tasks to do more specialized work in a
> technology area.
>
> I have a preference for B, because I think that specialists in these areas
> will not want to see content belonging to another specialty area.
> For Sept, perhaps our only real tasks are a general "component design"
> task that deals with 3GL language type development, and doesn't include UI
> or DB specialty tasks, these are added by separate
> plug-ins or packages.

I would like this to be decided fairly soon, seeing as I'm working on the
Agile DB Techniques plug in right now.  This will determine the scope of
the plug in.

<snip>

- Scott
Practice Leader Agile Development, IBM Rational
http://www.ambysoft.com/scottAmbler.html

Refactoring Databases (
http://www.ambysoft.com/books/refactoringDatabases.html ) is now
available.