|[epf-dev] New Unpublished Phase Iteration Template Capability Pattern|
I put an additional Capability Pattern in the OpenUP repository that is not utilized in the delivery process. It has been checked into CVS and it is in the repository available on the epf site in last week’s downloadable build of the OpenUP repository.
Based on the discussion in this email list and in some additional meetings and calls, I created a Phase Iteration Template called inception_phase_iteration_with_dev. It has the same elements as the default inception_phase_iteration, but it adds in an instance of the Capability Pattern: Develop Architecture as an activity named Develop Architecture Spike. The activity is shown with the activity Agree on Technical Approach as a predecessor.
In the Alternatives section of the phase iteration template I wrote:
This iteration template specifically includes activities around developing a chunk of architecture to prove feasibility or investigate some other risk area. In many projects there will not be a need to do any detailed architecture or implementation work done to meet the objectives of Inception. In those cases, those activities would be excluded.
I have included the activity diagram below.
The CP: Develop Architecture includes the CP: Develop Solution Increment. So this is an instance of an Inception iteration with some development. How do people feel about including this in the repository? Note that this does not change the default delivery process that is published; people looking at the published OpenUP site won’t even know it is there. But it is in the repository so someone who is going to publish the process can swap out the iteration template in their delivery process and publish with it. In that way I feel more comfortable saying “The default OpenUP instance does not happen to have development in Inception, but it would be perfectly reasonable to do so; you would just swap out the iteration template for the one supplied that has development in it.
In this way, I think OpenUP is also a better example of an EPF process. It is important to show that a process within the Eclipse Process Framework can have various ways it can be applied.
How do people feel about my usage of the word “Spike”? The word spike does not commonly appear in OpenUP, but it is used once in the middle of Guideline: Staffing a Project.
It might be notable to some that I am only including development on behalf of architecture. Does anyone feel that this is intolerable and there should be an additional instance of Develop Solution Increment that is not tied to the development of the architecture?