| [epf-dev] New Unpublished Phase Iteration Template Capability Pattern |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