上手です。
XP MLで”XPはRUPのインスタンスか？”というスレッドが続いていて大変興味深
くみていたのですが、議論がまとまって来たようなので、紹介します。
結論は、消極的な ＹＥＳ です。
RUP always starts with an architecture. So does XP. Ours is on the small side.
RUP allows revisions. So does XP. Ours are on the large side.
>and RUPs commitment to use of
>components, and the XP field notes' strong resistance to component usage,
>under the banner of YAGNI.
YAGNI doesn't say don't USE components, it says don't BUILD components if
your job is to build a product. We might also say (I know that *I* would)
that some components, such as DBMS or other giant packages, should be
approached with caution.
I still really don't care whether RUP wants to ride on the XP bandwagon or
not, but from what I know of RUP (not enough, but more than I want) I'd not
feel dishonest saying that my XP project was "consistent with" RUP.
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
印象的だったのは、”RUPで無くてアミーゴのUSDPのインスタンスだ”と言う指摘
でした。Rational とは無関係というのを強調していることは、彼らが Rational
と距離を置きだしたということでしょうか？
Perhaps you need to start saying that XP is an instance of the Unified
Software Development Process put out by the Amigos (Jacobson, of course). It
is not tied to Rational, and is the next evolution of RUP in some ways.
Perhaps it should be called Jacobson's USDP - the next generation of RUP.
And then XP is an instance of the USDP...
Dan ;-)
＃Mike Corum Life Science Informatics Pharmacia は面白いです
＃Robert C. Martin Object Mentor Inc. もRUPとXPの比較に対して詳細にコメ
ントしています
（では）