Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++,comp.client-server
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!projtech!daemon
From: steve@projtech.com
Subject: Re: SCRUM and Why the Waterfall Methodology is a Fool's Errand ... 
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: sallys
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <NEWTNews.817235169.4117.steve@sallys.projtech.com>
Lines: 39
Sender: daemon@projtech.com
Organization: Project Technology, Inc.
X-Newsreader: NEWTNews & Chameleon -- TCP/IP for MS Windows from NetManage
References: <30AF370B.1AE@vmark.com> <jzqcvc@bmtech.demon.co.uk> <48spd4$s30@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <30B34179.66AF@oma.com> <NEWTNews.817067535.430.steve@sallys.projtech.com>  <RMARTIN.95Nov23092939@rcm.oma.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 16:39:34 GMT
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object:41257 comp.lang.smalltalk:31038 comp.lang.c++:161681 comp.client-server:14073


In article <RMARTIN.95Nov23092939@rcm.oma.com>, <rmartin@rcm.oma.com> writes:
> In steve@projtech.com writes:
> 
> >  I suggest that a process that:
> >
> >  1. Identifies the domains (layers) in the system, as the first step
> >  2. Immediately moves to understand (and document) the dependencies 
> >     between the domains
> >  3. Analyzes each domain separately and (relatively) independently
> 
> >   is taking on active management of development risk, through explicit
> >   management of the dependencies between the layers. Further, we
> >   begin this very early on in the development process.  Finally I say
> >   for one last time, that such a process is not a waterfall.
> 
> Agreed, this is not waterfall.  Moreover, most of this is very
> traditional OO thinking.  Our previous confusion was primarily due to
> vocabulary.  You were contrasting Booch's vertical slices to your
> horizontal slices.  But you don't really have horizontal slices (in
> terms of Analysis, Design, Implementation).  YOu have orthogonal slices
> in terms of subject areas.

Precisely.  This is the concept of the domain.
> 
> My only comment here is that you still need vertical slices.  It would
> be a grave flaw to analyse and develop the subject areas separately.
> There is no good way to keep them in sync except to cut vertical slices
> through the entire product, touching all the subject areas, and make
> those slices deliverables in a schedule.  In that way, for each
> scheduled deliverable, the subject areas must be in sync.  This closes
> the loop and staves off the integration nightmare.
> 

I disagree entirely.  What do mean "to keep them in sync?"

Consider an application domain that depends on an OODBMS domain.
Why is a grave flaw to build the OODBMS separately from the 
application?  Why will there be an integration nightmare?

-- steve mellor

