There is a collegial dispute between some of the instructors here at
Seneca. I won't tell you which side I'm on, but your comments would be
welcome. You can rest assured that I will pass them on -- if they
support me, of course.
Position A: One instructor says that you can't split a use case into
scenarios that cover less than a *complete* path through the FOE. This
agrees with Quatrani (start of chapter 5, VISUAL MODELLING), but may
produce long, awkward scenarios, and long, wide sequence diagrams.
Position B: The other says that's not good software practice, and
scenarios need to capture a small, natural unit of work in the FOE.
This contradicts Quatrani, but produces shorter scenarios with easier
sequence diagrams. One argument against is that the decomposition into
smaller scenarios may be confusing.
So, whadaya say? Do you favor position A or position B? Why?
-Eric
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
