I'm going to throw another question into the mix.
If a team wants to use this extra pattern you created, one has to open 
Composer, edit the current delivery process to remove the default 
Inception pattern and add this alternative. There is some minimal modeling 
involved, but there is some.
Why don't we provide a second, complete delivery process including this 
new Inception phase, which is made available in the context of a second 
configuration? 
So OpenUP would come with two delivery processes and two configurations. 
The default published web site would be based on the current configuration 
(delivery process has Inception without development) and for those teams 
that want the alternative, the only thing to do is to publish the other 
configuration available - no process modeling needed.

Just a thought.

Ricardo Balduino
IBM Rational Software (www.ibm.com/rational)
Eclipse Process Framework (www.eclipse.org/epf)




"Brian Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
07/10/2007 08:23 AM
Please respond to
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@eclipse.org>


To
<epf-dev@eclipse.org>
cc

Subject
[epf-dev] New Unpublished Phase Iteration Template Capability   Pattern






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
 
_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev

<<image/gif>>

_______________________________________________
epf-dev mailing list
epf-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev

Reply via email to