Comments on: Live Draft: Agile Architecture is not Fragile Architecture : James Coplien and Kevlin Henney (QCon) http://sadekdrobi.com/2007/03/15/live-draft-agile-architecture-is-not-fragile-architecture-james-coplien-and-kvlin-henney-qconf/ Sadek Drobi Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:30:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Kevlin Henney http://sadekdrobi.com/2007/03/15/live-draft-agile-architecture-is-not-fragile-architecture-james-coplien-and-kvlin-henney-qconf/#comment-61 Kevlin Henney Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:48:27 +0000 http://sadekdrobi.com/?p=165#comment-61 Yes, "inception" is a word that RUP uses. It is also an ordinary English word that means "the establishment or starting point of an activity". Therefore, by definition, inception is what happens first. RUP uses this term correctly, as did we. So, making inception part of the first iteration automatically makes it happen first. There is no contradiction here, but what you will find is that the initial iteration is qualitatively different to later iterations. There are many ways that this can be addressed within the lifecycle model. One approach is to introduce a "sprint 0", thereby preserving the regularity of iteration terminology. Another approach is to recognise this as a phase difference, and mark it as such. In the all-day QCon workshop I ran, I used the "sprint 0" approach because it fitted with the rhythm of the day (four parts to the day, which mapped to spring 0 to 3). In the talk described in this blog Cope and I used the term "inception" to acknowledge the qualitative difference. We also mentioned that this can be structured in terms of being an initial sprint. Historically, Scrum also used to make a distinction, dividing the lifecycle into the planning phase, the sprint phase and the closure phase. There is no getting away from: whatever you do at the beginning of something will be its inception, regardless of how you want to brand it! Yes, “inception” is a word that RUP uses. It is also an ordinary English word that means “the establishment or starting point of an activity”. Therefore, by definition, inception is what happens first. RUP uses this term correctly, as did we. So, making inception part of the first iteration automatically makes it happen first. There is no contradiction here, but what you will find is that the initial iteration is qualitatively different to later iterations. There are many ways that this can be addressed within the lifecycle model. One approach is to introduce a “sprint 0″, thereby preserving the regularity of iteration terminology. Another approach is to recognise this as a phase difference, and mark it as such. In the all-day QCon workshop I ran, I used the “sprint 0″ approach because it fitted with the rhythm of the day (four parts to the day, which mapped to spring 0 to 3). In the talk described in this blog Cope and I used the term “inception” to acknowledge the qualitative difference. We also mentioned that this can be structured in terms of being an initial sprint. Historically, Scrum also used to make a distinction, dividing the lifecycle into the planning phase, the sprint phase and the closure phase. There is no getting away from: whatever you do at the beginning of something will be its inception, regardless of how you want to brand it!

]]> By: sadek http://sadekdrobi.com/2007/03/15/live-draft-agile-architecture-is-not-fragile-architecture-james-coplien-and-kvlin-henney-qconf/#comment-49 sadek Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:49:32 +0000 http://sadekdrobi.com/?p=165#comment-49 Yes it can be a part of the first sprint, they even mentioned that it can be the first sprint. The idea is just not to be too naieve that the architecture will draw itself, like in TDD where the last "D" is Design, which leads to a procedural style wraped in objects, and a disconnected procedure from user requirements and user needs! 2-3 weeks is quite short, and thats what is good about it. You cant go far with your architecture, choosing the programming language is a kind of decision that you dont want to differ till later i guess. And the result of such a sprint would be code NOT only documentation... Yes it can be a part of the first sprint, they even mentioned that it can be the first sprint.
The idea is just not to be too naieve that the architecture will draw itself, like in TDD where the last “D” is Design, which leads to a procedural style wraped in objects, and a disconnected procedure from user requirements and user needs!
2-3 weeks is quite short, and thats what is good about it. You cant go far with your architecture, choosing the programming language is a kind of decision that you dont want to differ till later i guess. And the result of such a sprint would be code NOT only documentation…

]]> By: Eric http://sadekdrobi.com/2007/03/15/live-draft-agile-architecture-is-not-fragile-architecture-james-coplien-and-kvlin-henney-qconf/#comment-45 Eric Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:55:51 +0000 http://sadekdrobi.com/?p=165#comment-45 "Inception"?? sounds very much like RUP to me... To be honest, I don't see what the big deal is with their inception phase. Clearly it seems very short (less than 2 weeks if I compare with the iterations). Why not make it part of the first iteration? As for the sentence "second and third to market are often more successful", who says so? Besides, the reasons might be numerous, and not necessarily related to architecture. “Inception”?? sounds very much like RUP to me…
To be honest, I don’t see what the big deal is with their inception phase. Clearly it seems very short (less than 2 weeks if I compare with the iterations). Why not make it part of the first iteration?

As for the sentence “second and third to market are often more successful”, who says so? Besides, the reasons might be numerous, and not necessarily related to architecture.

]]>