As far as giving Rose the ability to support a user definable set of top level packages, I agree that it would be great.
I believe that RUP and the 4+1 Model View are 2 different animals. RUP defines a set of models that supports the entire development process. The 4+1 Model View is only one particular way to extract, organize and view architecturally significant information contained in these models. It is more akin to a report. Theoretically, one could create this view of architecture for any software system, RUP or no RUP. One could also create a view of system architecture, based on the information contained in the RUP models, but different than 4+1. I argue that the Rose template for RUP accurately represents RUP because it is organized around RUP's complete set of models. A 4+1 Model View template could also be useful, but it does not reflect the completeness of RUP. -Jeff -----Original Message----- From: English, Art [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 5:20 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Osvaldo Kotaro Takai Cc: Rossomando, Philip; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; English, Art; 'Lowe, Jeff' Subject: RE: (ROSE) RES: (RUP) The 4+1 View Model of Architecture This is a RUP template provided by Rose. It is one of many templates. I am questioning the template not Rose. If Rational is going to provide a RUP template, it should like the RUP 4+1 architecture. Rational could change the RUP Template name to "Kind of Like the RUP" and add a new template called "RUP 4+1 View Architecture" << Not all Rose users always want RUP's 4+1 dogma imposed on them.>> I agree. The user can choose another template. << And yes, it would be sensible if Rose were flexible and could support more than one set of top level views, so those using Rose with RUP and applying the dogma could have a tool that directly supports this world view.>> This is what we really need. Even if I wanted to build my own 4+ template, I can't because I cannot modify the top-level views in Rose. Cheers, Art. Arthur English Research Director, Technology and Architecture Global Industries Unisys Corporation One Unisys Way Blue Bell, PA 19424 B (215) 986-5712 Mobile: (610) 805-0183 Net: 423-5712 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 5:01 AM To: Osvaldo Kotaro Takai Cc: 'Rossomando, Philip'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'English, Art'; 'Lowe, Jeff' Subject: Re: (ROSE) RES: (RUP) The 4+1 View Model of Architecture (responding to Osvaldo Kotaro Takai) > I think that you didn't understand Art's thought. > > If does Rose own a RUP's template, why to don't accommodate perfectly > its own concepts?. > > I think that Rational had to review the concepts to nullify suches > discrepancies clearly identified by Art. With respect, I think you didn't understand Jeff's objection. Not all Rose users always want RUP's 4+1 dogma imposed on them. The 4+1 Views and Use Case Driven dogma are doing a good job, and are fine in their place. And yes, it would be sensible if Rose were flexible and could support more than one set of top level views, so those using Rose with RUP and applying the dogma could have a tool that directly supports this world view. However, other developers have other world views, and don't want 4+1 imposed on them. Please don't take my use of the word 'dogma' in respect to RUP to be derogatory, it is not intended as such. Paul Oldfield any opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of Mentors of Cally ************************************************************************ * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support * * Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Archive of messages: * http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: <BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum *************************************************************************
