Process

Hello All,
In OOA&D with UML
Is incremental Development apply in iterative philosophy to the waterfall model?
Can any one tell me about the Use of Software Process in UML
i.e
Traditional/waterfall
Prototype
RAD
Evalutionary
1 Incremental
2. spiral
3.Component Assembly
Formal Model

Originally posted by Zafar Ali:
In OOA&D with UML
Is incremental Development apply in iterative philosophy to the waterfall model?

Yes. The idea behind an interative waterfall is that you will do your analysis and then move forward into design. Then, you'll go back and revisit your analysis work and then move forward. Eventually, you'll move forward a little farther, but continue this iterative process. This is a better approach for finding errors sooner than with a straight waterfall model.
One question that I've never quite gotten straight: what's the difference between an iterative waterfall and a spiral process? They seems as if they fall into the same realm: analysis, design, ..., repeat.

Corey

Hello Corey!
your initial tips are nice but i am not clear plz give me appropriate example if you have about the Waterfall and other model that how apply in UML. thanx in advance. :roll:

Hello Corey!
your initial tips are nice but i am not clear plz give me appropriate example if you have about the Waterfall and other model that how apply in UML. thanx in advance. :roll:

I don't follow what you're asking for. You'll have to be more specific. Regardless, questions about software development processes really belong within the Process Forum. I'll leave that up to Junilu, as this is "his turf."

Corey

Since this question seems to be really more about Process, I'll move it there...
Bartender

Hello Corey!
here i am trying to define the Spiral and Waterfall model.
The Spiral model is not a sivler bullet, but considered to be one of the best
approaces. Can use prototyping during any phase in the evalution of product and
Requires excellent management and risk assessement skills.
Development cycle through multiple task region ( 6 stage version)
*customer communication
*risk analysis
*engineering
*construction and release
*customer evalution
now Waterfall model
not suited to new , different system becuse of spceification uncertainty
May be suitable for well understood developments using familar technology
Each step result in documentation
Can accommodating iteration but indirectly
Corey may be i am going on right way if not plz alert me!

Well, it sounds like you're on the right track, but the thing that you're missing is that a Spiral pattern implies an "iterative" approach. That is, you take those 6 phases and go through them. Once you're done, you go back and do them again.
With the traditional waterfall model, you get just that, a waterfall. You can go down, but you can't get back up. That analogy roughly means that once you finish analysis, you go to design. You can't go back to analysis. Once you move from design to implementation, you can't go back to design.
What often happens in system development is that you move forward from one phase to another when you think you've got everything worked out. Of course, as you work through the next phase, new questions arise and new risks are identified. At this point, it is probably best to go back to the previous phase (or two, if necessary) and get answers to those questions. Then, you can continue once again.
The idea behind an iterative approach is that it is easier (and less costly) to fix problems the earlier you find them. Therefore, you want to ensure that you've identified and resolved as many risks as possible before you hit the implementation phase.
There is a variation of the waterfall model, called waterfall with iteration, which much more closely resembles the spiral pattern. In fact, I often have difficulty explaining the difference as they seem, in my mind, to be very similar.
One other thing to note, techniques such as prototyping can be used in any process, not just a spiral model.
Corey