Dear all,
I am new to this area. However, I would like to express my humble thoughts. Pls correct me if they are incorrect! I think 4+1 view provide a foundation for one of approaches in OOAD. I believe that it is also the core concept to the RUP. One of the advantages to adopt OOAD is its continuation from the inception phase to the deployment phase of the Software Development Cycle (Not the traditional SDLC which is more as a waterfall model). It is very true that there is no common agreed practice in this creative and innovative industry. Prehaps this is why it is referred as innovative. However, for those who are prepared to follow a already developed Process such as RUP, I think Rose should seriously consider to provide the capability in Rose to support this 4+1 view. Otherwise, they are selling products that are different from what they are preaching. On the other hand, for those who have developed their process from their past experience, Rose should allow them to incorporate their process into the tool. Otherwise, it is not a sensible marketing strategy. Finally, it would be appreciated for someone from Rational to comment on this issue so that we understand the intention before the decisions in developing Rose in such a form. There may be some good considerations behind the scene that we don't realise. Regards, Francis Law > -----Original Message----- > From: Lowe, Jeff [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 11:35 PM > To: 'English, Art'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Osvaldo Kotaro Takai > Cc: Rossomando, Philip; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; > '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Lowe, Jeff > Subject: RE: (ROSE) RES: (RUP) The 4+1 View Model of Architecture > > > 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 > ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************ * 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 *************************************************************************
