<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Letting Go of BDUF</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2007/04/letting-go-of-bduf.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2007/04/letting-go-of-bduf.html</link>
	<description>Management, especially good management, is hard to do. This blog is for people who want to think about how they manage people, projects, and risk.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:04:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz</title>
		<link>http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/2007/04/letting-go-of-bduf.html/comment-page-1#comment-648</link>
		<dc:creator>Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 02:41:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jrothman.com/blog/mpd/?p=7977#comment-648</guid>
		<description>Hi Johanna,
Hi highly agree with your statement that you should let architecture evolve.
However, I don't agree that you *always* can't predict what the architecture needs to be. When you are building a system that is similar to systems you've built in the past, you can have a good notion on the major architectural decisions. This is not to say that you shouldn't implement the bare minimum of it and that you shouldn't allow the architecture to evolve. ( I called that JEDUF (http://www.ddj.com/blog/architectblog/archives/2006/07/jeduf.html) just enough design up front)
By the way, unless you only did some spikes to test architectural decisions, I expect an architectural prototype to end with a few user stories working. These stories might not be the top priority ones from the users perspective (since hi-value ones stories are not always the most risky technologically or architecturally ) but they are real stories</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Johanna,<br />
Hi highly agree with your statement that you should let architecture evolve.<br />
However, I don&#8217;t agree that you *always* can&#8217;t predict what the architecture needs to be. When you are building a system that is similar to systems you&#8217;ve built in the past, you can have a good notion on the major architectural decisions. This is not to say that you shouldn&#8217;t implement the bare minimum of it and that you shouldn&#8217;t allow the architecture to evolve. ( I called that JEDUF (http://www.ddj.com/blog/architectblog/archives/2006/07/jeduf.html) just enough design up front)<br />
By the way, unless you only did some spikes to test architectural decisions, I expect an architectural prototype to end with a few user stories working. These stories might not be the top priority ones from the users perspective (since hi-value ones stories are not always the most risky technologically or architecturally ) but they are real stories</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
