I apologize if this shows up twice. There was a bit of trouble with my
mailer.
Johan Galle wrote:
> And then I have to start explaining about UML and why UML tools do not
> support these aspects as straight forward as can be expected. And the
reason
> for this lack of support is clear: the tools support the notation instead
of
> the process.
In my opinion, that's exactly what the tool, if billed as a "UML tool" is
*supposed* to do -- support the notation.
I think the problem here is that you don't have "The Process". There
are a number of usable processes in software development, and numerous
variations on those. Which one do you want to have built into your
tool? But if we're talking about UML, yes, it's a specific notation
and that's what these tools are built to handle.
I *don't want* a UML tool to impose more on me in terms of process
beyond what is inherent in UML itself. I acknowledge that Rose, say,
doesn't yet implement all of UML and I look forward to the day it does.
But I don't want Rose forcing me into paths that are outside of the
bounds of UML. Those paths are for me and my project personnel to
determine. It wasn't that difficult either, to establish our processes.
We used a combination of elements from RUP, the knowledge of our more
experienced software engineers, and elements borrowed from a
neighboring project who were further along the process path.
Laurie Gerholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
3M IT Corporate Database Systems
************************************************************************
* 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
*
*************************************************************************
