Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - andyd

Pages: 1 [2]
Uml Process / Re: USE CASE Cookbook
« on: December 16, 2002, 11:14:17 am »
They can also be useful for estimating effort, along with the initial class diagrams produced in analysis.  Even easier in EA!


Uml Process / Re: USE CASE Cookbook
« on: December 13, 2002, 11:59:32 am »
Sounds like analysis patterns as opposed to design patterns ;)


Uml Process / Re: A first contribution on the PUP/EUP
« on: December 17, 2002, 05:12:04 pm »
Hi All,
I've read some of the text from the book by Kent Beck "XP Embrace change".
I found it quite interesting and think it is always good to come up with new ways of thinking.  
I may have mis-understood, but as I recall the idea was that the code was considered the documentation until the project got to the point that it was no-longer changing.  At that point the approach seemed to be quickly document everything so that its not forgotten.  As I said, that was my impression and I'm not trying to upset anyone with my statement.  I do believe that XP has some good points, particularly its focus on automated testing, and I seem pair programming a benefit.  However, design documentation IMHO can assist with other areas such as project estimation and impact analysis.  I also feel that it is easier to document something as you go along.
IMHO the ideal is somewhere in between XP and RUP, where artifacts are generated because they add direct value, in some way, to the project.  This may change according to the size and complexity of project.  Arguably RUP supports this in the fact that it is itself configurable.

Some examples of where I see value, particularly at analysis

EA Requirements (not UML but I still find it useful)
* provide tracability to use cases.
* Can generate a document for the customer for "sign off" to baseline requirments in the model.

Use cases
* hi level, help show customer scope of system
* detailed, assist with planning acceptance testing and estimation of effort
* Planning development iterations

Activity Diagrams
* elaboration of processes involved - still understood by customer



Uml Process / Re: A first contribution on the PUP/EUP
« on: December 10, 2002, 10:30:52 am »
Hi Steve,
It was a general statement and wasn't directed at RUP, as such.

However, it could be that they can get away with it as the guys that started all this unified stuff work there.

We actually looked at using RUP, completed the training etc, but considered it too much to invest in, as we could see the probability that an updated process would be released each year, requiring further investment higher than we were willing to pay at the time.

However, the ideal that many companies could use a common development process is something that does appeal to me.  It could potentially make life easier for contractors, customers and others if everyone talks the same language(UML) and develops in the same way (*UP).  Though it would be good to be able to select elements of the process according to the size of the project under development, cutting down overhead on smaller projects, but making sure there is enough on larger and more risky projects (IMHO).


Uml Process / Re: A first contribution on the PUP/EUP
« on: December 10, 2002, 08:20:44 am »
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing bad to say about EA or Sparx, but IMHO it is better to name the process in its own right without associating it directly with a product or company.  There is a possible danger that the process could be seen as a way of marketing a particular tool, which could impact on its credibility.  Of course the EA tools can leverage from its existence in supporting development with that process.
I guess we could always nominate names and e-vote for one.  
I don't really mind (the main thing is to have the process, whatever it is called), but here are a couple more suggestions.

"Open Unified Process" (OUP)

"The Unified Process" (TUP)


Uml Process / Re: A first contribution on the PUP/EUP
« on: December 09, 2002, 05:20:01 pm »
Hi Guys,
I'm certainly interested!
I have a couple of suggestions, though not directly aimed at the process itself, at this time.
1) RFC's seem to be standard for many Internet technologies, though I'm not sure that they must be confined to such.  Maybe it could be a good launching platform for such an open process, as RFC's are review by many developers.

2) I'll assume that this is the case, but for completeness I'll suggest that an EA project be a good place to describe some of the workflows in the process.  EAReqPro could, of course, generate the appropriate documents.

3) I feel that the process should easily scale according to the complexity (in terms of effort) of the project at hand.


Uml Process / Re: Mission/Vision statement
« on: December 12, 2002, 12:42:57 pm »
Hi Guys,
Lookin' good so far.
Do you think it would be useful to include guidelines for use of the process for different types of project?

I.e. real time, e-commerce or small (i.e. a number of weeks) and large ( months or years)?


Hi Olaf,
Thanks for your reply.
No I've not got anywhere as yet, well not in the way that I intended, anyway.

JAG does seem to be able to generate beans from a database schema.  So, possibly, you could use EA to create a Schema, export this to a database, generate the beans from JAG and then import the source into EA for the implementation model.
However, I still think I'd like to use the XMI and go straight there!

I never had much success trading Rose models with EA, but fortunately we don't need to do that any more ;-).

If I get time I'll try and get a better idea of why it doesn't work, but I'll need to swat up on XMI first.

JAG uses stereo types to label session and entity beans.  With EA's strong support in this area it would be a good tool match IMHO.


Automation Interface, Add-Ins and Tools / Working with Jag (J2EE App Gen)
« on: November 28, 2003, 04:34:35 pm »
Hi Guys,
I've just been looking at jag (
Looks as it would be a great way to generate J2EE EJB and Structs & JAO apps with EA as the UML Tool.

Has anyone got it working with EA?  I seem to get problems with Jag parsing the exported XMI from EA.  Noticed the sample xmi with Jag is version 1.2.  Could this be it?  If so is there a plan to support XMP V1.2 in the near future?


Pages: 1 [2]