Discussions

News: Eclipse Foundation to recieve Rational Unified Process donation

  1. IBM is proposing to donate a subset of the Rational Unified Process to the Eclipse Foundation under the nickname Beacon. With this donation, IBM is looking to create an open source, organized, systematic approach to software development projects.

    There are three goals of the Eclipse Process Framework Project. The first goal is to develop standard process tools and language. The second goal is promote iterative agile development through open source. The third goal facilitates the easy adoption of the Eclipse Process Framework by making it applicable under a broad set of scenarios including those outside of the Eclipse platform.

    Do you think that this donation from IBM really makes a difference in how software is currently developed or will the development shops that have already bought into RUP be the only ones interested in this development?

    Also, for more information, check out:
    IBM donates open source development framework to Eclipse

    Threaded Messages (22)

  2. systematic approach[ Go to top ]

    "systematic approach" are ugly word for me.

    A lot of rules in order to develop good products with bad developers. A great idea, yes. Or maybe a manager's illusion.

    I think that the people with faith in the magic of 'process' need more PeopleWare and less ProcessWare.
  3. systematic approach[ Go to top ]

    I have seen good team managers deliver good software on schedule despite having mediocre programmers, provided they could control the process. I have also seen team managers who trust only programmer skills deliver awful software far beyond schedule even when employing capable programmers. So yes, I believe that process does matter.

    But I still prefer having good programmers AND a good process....
  4. RUP is a great shop window[ Go to top ]

    Even if RUP is independent of the tools used to facilitate it, it is full of references to them, so it acts as a promotion platform.

    I was involved in a RUP implementation project four years ago where we came to the conclusion that (given the difficulty of licensing such a product (companies were supposed to pay a license for each worker in a project following RUP)), giving it for free as a sales aid for the Rational Suite would be a good idea.

    Lucas Rodriguez Cervera
    www.nevant.com
  5. My experience is (and I assume many others' as well), that large software companies prefer using development processes, IDEs and (target) operating systems that they can easily get commercial and professional support for - and someone that they can blame.
    If something goes wrong the head of the IT-department wants to kick some (company's) ass and not blame a few open-source developers - that he can't get ahold of - for releasing faulty code. In case of a problem the board won't understand nor accept how open-source software (that they consider toys if there's no "real" company behind it) could have been used.
    You can't rely on a bugfix for an open-source product but you can rely on (e.g.) Borland reacting to your complaint if a bug in JBuilder hinders you from deploying your software.
    The whole problem is that you can always find support for an open-source product but you can't find someone who considers himself responsible for the product.

    Of course the RUP is an established process but I think releasing it to the Eclipse foundation will give it a callow touch although its a mature product.

    Rias A. Sherzad (strictly using open-source software except for my WinXP)
    sherzad.com
  6. Sorry! but what is it?......[ Go to top ]

    is it something like project managment and planning,or a collaboration suit for developers
  7. How do you donate a process?[ Go to top ]

    RUP is a process. How do you donate an intellectual idea? Do they mean to donate part of their Rational Suite of modelling tools?
  8. How do you donate a process?[ Go to top ]

    RUP is what I'd call a process framework, kind of like Agile. It lays out guidelines and defines terms, but it isn't really a "thou shalt" process.

    IBM Rational also produces a suite of tools to automate RUP. Implementations of RUP tend to be rather heavy processes, and heavy processes can create huge amounts of overhead. So IBM Rational defines a process framework that seems to lead heavy processes with lots of overhead, and then IBM Rational sells tools to remove some of the overhead. These tools go far beyond modelling.

    They make money consulting on the process. They make money selling the software. They make money consulting on the software. And if they're lucky, the make money selling servers and middleware to run the software, and associated services, as well.

    The problem is most formal processes don't scale well. A process that works well for a team of 5 will often crash and burn with a team of 200. A process designed for a team of 200 often can't even be done with a team of 5, because it will take more than 5 people to do all the paperwork.

    Anyway, I could write a dissertation on desinging processes that scale (both up and down), and on using automatation to help achieve that scalability. But I won't.

    I think IBM wants to figure out how to fascilitate lighter RUP implementations. Open Source likes light and agile, so they are using they are trying to get open source developers to find a way to make it light and agile.

    Then they will take what they learned and sell it.
  9. How do you donate a process?[ Go to top ]

    RUP is what I'd call a process framework, kind of like Agile. It lays out guidelines and defines terms, but it isn't really a "thou shalt" process.IBM Rational also produces a suite of tools to automate RUP. Implementations of RUP tend to be rather heavy processes, and heavy processes can create huge amounts of overhead.

    Yeah, RUP is pretty heavy. I also think it is at odds with OSS dev processes. Why do we need it? Is Junit/Ant/Gump wrong? Is refactoring wrong? Maybe donating RUP to OSS is the last chance to keep RUP alive.
      So IBM Rational defines a process framework that seems to lead heavy processes with lots of overhead, and then IBM Rational sells tools to remove some of the overhead. These tools go far beyond modelling.They make money consulting on the process. They make money selling the software. They make money consulting on the software. And if they're lucky, the make money selling servers and middleware to run the software, and associated services, as well.

    yes, and an OSS version of RUP still needs all those consultants.
    The problem is most formal processes don't scale well. A process that works well for a team of 5 will often crash and burn with a team of 200. A process designed for a team of 200 often can't even be done with a team of 5, because it will take more than 5 people to do all the paperwork.Anyway, I could write a dissertation on desinging processes that scale (both up and down), and on using automatation to help achieve that scalability. But I won't.I think IBM wants to figure out how to fascilitate lighter RUP implementations. Open Source likes light and agile, so they are using they are trying to get open source developers to find a way to make it light and agile.Then they will take what they learned and sell it.

    Well, IBM have Junit (Kent Beck) and Gump (Sam Ruby). Why dont they take what OSS have and try and sell that, instead of trying to give us something we dont apparently need.

    Actually, a good UML editor with tight-IDE integration and perfect round-tripping could be good at times, but I dunno if that was in the gift bag this time round.
  10. How do you donate a process?[ Go to top ]

    Actually, a good UML editor with tight-IDE integration and perfect round-tripping could be good at times, but I dunno if that was in the gift bag this time round.
    That would be good. I was just having a conversation with a BA and was saying that we need something like that to help communicated with them. They currently are looking at the db and that isn't good.
  11. How do you donate a process?[ Go to top ]

    Actually, a good UML editor with tight-IDE integration and perfect round-tripping could be good at times, but I dunno if that was in the gift bag this time round.
    That would be good. I was just having a conversation with a BA and was saying that we need something like that to help communicated with them. They currently are looking at the db and that isn't good.

    I hear from time to time that b/s from tool vendors, that they finally got it, you know, "good UML editor with tight-IDE integration and perfect round-tripping". I hear it since dark ages of early Rational Rose and TogetherJ, and they still weren't able to deliver on the promise. Shouldn't that wishful thinking be abandoned a long ago?

    In a couple of years your and mine BAs would be looking at MDA models or at some DSL code. A man can dream, a man can dream...
  12. How do you donate a process?[ Go to top ]

    I'd settle for just reverse engineering. On that note, I see that Slime UML is now available at no cost.
  13. RUP is a process framework[ Go to top ]

    I have been using RUP in both large telecom projects (1000 people) and very small 10 people projects, and it has
    been working well.

    RUP is more of a toolbox to pick and choose from, and if the choice is bad you get heavy processes and lots of paperwork, but you can also get a smooth ride.

    So you build your processes using RUP as a toolbox, and if you do a bad design you get bad results, just like software.

    RUP is not really tied to any specific tools, we used what we already had.

    I think the whole issue of processes is more about education and training, than about the tools one might use.

    If this is done right (which is maybe an art form?) then RUP can help you to manage things better.

    Per
  14. How do you donate a process?[ Go to top ]

    Yeah, RUP is pretty heavy. I also think it is at odds with OSS dev processes. Why do we need it? Is Junit/Ant/Gump wrong? Is refactoring wrong? Maybe donating RUP to OSS is the last chance to keep RUP alive.

    RUP isn't heavy. It's the way people choose to implement RUP that's heavy. It's human nature that weighs it down. Perhaps it's IBM consultants that weigh it down.

    The books I've read on RUP (and ones tied to RUP) usually talk in terms of roles and information that needs to be captured/communicated. They often explicitly say a person can wear several hats within the process, and that information can be in several artifacts or a single artififact, depending on what's appropriate. They even provide guidance on what to drop for small scale efforts.

    But what implementers of the process do is translate roles into titles and type of information into artifacts. So the question "Is it clear to all stakeholders how this system is going to fit into the business and deliver value?" changes into "Do you have a ConOps document in accordance with procedure XYZ and form XYZ-123?" The result is a bunch of work is put into a boilerplate document that fails miserably at fulfulling the intent of the process.

    Furthermore, in large companies project roles change from job title to departments. One specialist in a department my work on 20 different projects. The specialist working on a given project may change every week or even every day.

    The result of all this is a monster, and people finding more and more ways to circumvent the process, or perform what I call "viewgraph compliance."

    I think IBM is trying to learn how to define an effective and scalable process implmentantation for RUP. It can't really experiment with it's customers, but it can experiment with OSS developers and non-paying users of OSS.
  15. How do you donate a process?[ Go to top ]

    Maybe donating RUP to OSS is the last chance to keep RUP alive.

    Well, to me it seems that there are two RUPs.
    One is RUP The Process.
    The second is RUP The Set Of Tools.

    The first one is pretty appealing with all the Iterational Development, Early Risk Resolution and Architecture Centric stuff in it. Although its last release was, well, in 2003, it still looks good and usable. Templates, roles and all that, you know.

    The second one is, alas, already dead.
    Rose, ClearCase, ClearQuest, Robot and RequisitePro were all shining cool back then in 2000, but now, 5 years down the road, who needs that rusty stuff? There are a lot of better and/or cheaper alternatives at the market. And yes, you don't need RUP tools to do RUP.

    Timur,
    IBM Certified RUP Specialist
  16. How do you donate a process?[ Go to top ]

    RUP is a process. How do you donate an intellectual idea? Do they mean to donate part of their Rational Suite of modelling tools?
    According to IBM's press release, IBM is "contributing intellectual property". I suspect the donation includes only prose but not software.
  17. How do you donate a process?[ Go to top ]

    RUP is a process. How do you donate an intellectual idea? Do they mean to donate part of their Rational Suite of modelling tools?
    According to IBM's press release, IBM is "contributing intellectual property". I suspect the donation includes only prose but not software.
    The link provided in the first post says that some of the contribution will be software.

    "..He said IBM will seed the proposed project with "about 15% of the content in RUP -- 300,000 lines of code -- and tooling that allows you to capture the process, package it into chunks of content, distribute the process and put together best practices."
  18. As IT groups rummage through the garbage dump of processes this will be a good heap to sift through. RUP offers lots of useful artifacts and techniques and I'm sure the "subset" from IBM will be useful enough. Jeez, you might even need Global Services to come in and train developers on RUP. Process is light so even if you don't do it right you can still claim you use RUP in your shop. Consultants love to tell clients that they use a variation of RUP in project proposals. It will be tailored to the exact needs of the client.

    Sounds like Eclipse's Beacon will take the form of a wiki pre-loaded with RUP content. If the content get stale just keep the wiki and throw away the RUP. I hope they leave room for other process flavors, tools and techniques such as agile.

    RUP helped sell tools for Rational and now, after the buyout, WSAD-based UML modelling helps sell Websphere. Rational had a clear need to sell process where IBM may not see the value. Global Services may also have a tougher time selling RUP (the product) with agile getting the limelight. Best to get the donation value while you can.

    Don't wait for it. Buy Carig Larman's book today.
  19. Life without tools[ Go to top ]

    I am not sure what is the purpose of this donation, and what exactly they are trying to donate.

    I tried to use RUP builder tool, and I gave up after one day. Just did not fit the mindset of Agile software development that I personally prefer.

    Many people assume (R)UP is a documentation factory, and that they need all those tools to make it work. For those people this may be a great news. I personally think that all the one needs from (R)UP is to adopt core wisdoms of iterative, risk driven, architecture centric development, four phases and few helpful templates.


    You do not really need any tool for that. On the other hand - free tools will not hurt anyone. We just need to wait and see what is the hidden agenda behind it. They may just want to get rid of the remaining Rational tools they (IBM) do not know what to do about.

    Regards,
    Edmon
    http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/software
  20. What a bunch of crap
  21. RUP and Iterative Life Cycle maybe are good ideas. But, sincerelly, I haven't found any customer that let me work in this way. They want all the documentation at the begining of the project and all the software at the end of it.
  22. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding what exactly IBM has donated to Eclipse. Per Kroll, who is in charge of RUP at Rational, wrote a nice short article on developerWorks that explains it well.
  23. Interesting thread - I can't believe that so many people are against process, it is your friend!!!

    Good process allows you to go around the software lifecycle with style. Sure everyone likes being in front of the compiler (construction phase), but there are a lot of other skills in the lifecycle that are equally if not more important. Example - you can have the smartest developers, but if they can't capture requirements they will miss the mark every time.

    I think a lot of people confuse process with documentation (and most developers don't like documentation). Using Ant, version control, code promotion, bug tracking, unit testing - these are all processes just like documenting requirements, except they are all in the construction phase.

    Process is how you go about creating software from start to finish. I have had the opportunity to work on a team that had well defined processes. It makes a difference, you have more time to work on growing more advanced skills instead of wasting time with trivial things that result from doing it different each time.

    You can follow the Agile, Feature Driven Development, RUP, or the Unified Process - which ever you choose there are still decisions about what makes sense.

    One last thought --- you currently have a Process. Compare it to architecture - your going to have one, whether you put any thought into it at the begining of the project is another question - but you will have an architecture. I would suggest that you put some thought into your process (and architecture) so you have some control over it.