Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!mrsvr.UUCP!pet16.uucp!hallett From: hallett@pet16.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Object-Oriented Requirements Analysis: An Introduction Message-ID: <1690@mrsvr.UUCP> Date: 8 Dec 89 14:34:48 GMT References: <628@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> Sender: news@mrsvr.UUCP Reply-To: hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163) Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI Lines: 28 In article dwiggins@atsun.a-t.com (Don Dwiggins) writes: >In article <628@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> eberard (Edward Berard) writes: > First, as I have stated in several articles in the past, the > development part of the object-oriented life-cycle is best > accomplished using a recursive/parallel approach, i.e., "analyze a > little, design a little, implement a little, and test a little." Oh, I don't know about that. I personally do not like this approach for any kind of development (note: for requirements, yes; general development, no). >It does remind me a bit of Boehm's spiral model. One possible point of No small coincidence that it should. Boehm's spiral model, in general, is nothing new and neither is this approach. I personally favor an iterative approach in OOA/D - 1> study the classes required; 2> study the instance variables; 3> formulate a message set; 4> create relational links; 5> create a preliminary information model; 6> perform message-passing scenarios to test requirements; 7> curse that it doesn't work and refine starting with step 1 again. This process tends to converge quickly after only a few "start-overs". -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414, Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@gemed.ge.com Est natura hominum novitatis avida