| Re: [epf-dev] New Unpublished Phase Iteration Template Capability Pattern |
Hi
I think that this is a good thing. As discussed on the last
Architecture/Dev content call, I will look at the Develop the Architecture
steps included in the Capability Pattern to make sure that they make sense.
I think it's OK to embed the Development work inside the CP. My own take on
this is that it emphasises that we are taking an early opportunity to prove
the viability of the solution.
The use of the word "spike" has got an obvious Extreme Programming
association but personally, I see nothing wrong with that assuming that we
are not violating any copyright. IMHO XP does a great job of promoting the
"prove it with code" idea and many people instinctively understand what we
mean by the word "spike." Alternative words like "proof-of-concept" or
"prototype" seem to mean different things to different people (in my
experience, anyway).
regards
Mark
Mark Dickson
Executive Consultant
EAS Practice
m 0780 1917480
w www.xansa.com
e mark.dickson@xxxxxxxxx
"Brian Lyons"
<blyons@numbersix
.com> To
Sent by: <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
epf-dev-bounces@e cc
clipse.org
Subject
[epf-dev] New Unpublished Phase
10 July 2007 Iteration Template Capability
11:23 AST Pattern
Please respond to
Eclipse Process
Framework Project
Developers List
<epf-dev@eclipse.
org>
hiho,
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?
------------- b
(Embedded image moved to file: pic11942.gif)
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
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
Attachment:
pic11942.gif
Description: GIF image
