We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published bySadie Emens
Modified over 2 years ago
Slide 3.1 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering Fifth Edition, WCB/McGraw-Hill, 2002 Stephen R. Schach firstname.lastname@example.org
Slide 3.2 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 CHAPTER 3 SOFTWARE LIFE-CYCLE MODELS
Slide 3.3 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Overview l Build-and-fix model l Waterfall model l Rapid prototyping model l Incremental model l Extreme programming l Synchronize-and-stabilize model l Spiral model l Object-oriented life-cycle models l Comparison of life-cycle models
Slide 3.4 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Software Life-Cycle Models l Life-cycle model (formerly, process model) l The steps through which the product progresses –Requirements phase –Specification phase –Design phase –Implementation phase –Integration phase –Maintenance phase –Retirement
Slide 3.5 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Build and Fix Model l Problems –No specifications –No design l Totally unsatisfactory l Need life-cycle model –“Game plan” –Phases –Milestones
Slide 3.6 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Waterfall Model (contd) l Characterized by –Feedback loops –Documentation-driven l Advantages –Documentation –Maintenance easier l Disadvantages –Specifications »Joe and Jane Johnson »Mark Marberry
Slide 3.7 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Rapid Prototyping Model l Linear model l “Rapid”
Slide 3.8 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Three Key Points l Do not turn into product l Rapid prototyping may replace specification phase—never the design phase l Comparison: –Waterfall model—try to get it right first time –Rapid prototyping—frequent change, then discard
Slide 3.9 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Waterfall and Rapid Prototyping Models l Waterfall model –Many successes –Client needs l Rapid prototyping model –Not proved –Has own problems l Solution –Rapid prototyping for requirements phase –Waterfall for rest of life cycle
Slide 3.10 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Incremental Model l Divide project into builds
Slide 3.11 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Incremental Model (contd) l Waterfall, rapid prototyping models –Operational quality complete product at end l Incremental model –Operational quality portion of product within weeks l Less traumatic l Smaller capital outlay, rapid return on investment l Need open architecture—maintenance implications l Variations used in object-oriented life cycle
Slide 3.12 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Incremental Model (contd) l Problems –Build-and-fix danger –Contradiction in terms
Slide 3.13 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Incremental Model (contd) l More risky version—pieces may not fit –CABTAB and its dangers
Slide 3.14 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Extreme Programming l Somewhat controversial new approach l Stories (features client wants) l Estimate duration and cost of each story l Select stories for next build l Each build is divided into tasks l Test cases for task are drawn up first l Pair programming l Continuous integration of tasks
Slide 3.15 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Unusual Features of XP l Computers are put in center of large room lined with cubicles l Client representative is always present l Cannot work overtime for 2 successive weeks l No specialization l Refactoring
Slide 3.16 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Evaluating XP l XP has had some successes l Good when requirements are vague or changing l Too soon to evaluate XP
Slide 3.17 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Synchronize-and Stabilize Model l Microsoft’s life-cycle model l Requirements analysis—interview potential customers l Draw up specifications l Divide project into 3 or 4 builds l Each build is carried out by small teams working in parallel
Slide 3.18 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Synchronize-and Stabilize Model (contd) l At the end of the day—synchronize (test and debug) l At the end of the build—stabilize (freeze build) l Components always work together –Get early insights into operation of product
Slide 3.19 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Spiral Model l Simplified form –Waterfall model plus risk analysis l Precede each phase by –Alternatives –Risk analysis l Follow each phase by –Evaluation –Planning of next phase
Slide 3.20 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Simplified Spiral Model l If risks cannot be resolved, project is immediately terminated
Slide 3.21 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Full Spiral Model l Radial dimension: cumulative cost to date l Angular dimension: progress through the spiral
Slide 3.22 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Full Spiral Model (contd)
Slide 3.23 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Analysis of Spiral Model l Strengths –Easy to judge how much to test –No distinction between development, maintenance l Weaknesses –For large-scale software only –For internal (in-house) software only
Slide 3.24 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Object-Oriented Life-Cycle Models l Need for iteration within and between phases –Fountain model –Recursive/parallel life cycle –Round-trip gestalt –Unified software development process l All incorporate some form of –Iteration –Parallelism –Incremental development l Danger –CABTAB
Slide 3.25 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Fountain Model l Features l Overlap (parallelism) l Arrows (iteration) l Smaller maintenance circle
Slide 3.26 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Conclusions l Different life-cycle models l Each with own strengths l Each with own weaknesses l Criteria for deciding on a model include –The organization –Its management –Skills of the employees –The nature of the product l Best suggestion –“Mix-and-match” life-cycle model
Slide 3.1 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering Fifth Edition, WCB/McGraw-Hill, 2002 Stephen R. Schach
CHAPTER 3 SOFTWARE LIFE-CYCLE MODELS.
Software Engineering Zhang Shuang
SOFTWARE LIFE-CYCLE MODELS
SOFTWARE PROCESS MODELS. Software Process Models Process model (Life-cycle model) -steps through which the product progresses Requirements phase Specification.
Software Life-Cycle Models
Software Engineering At Glance. Why We Need Software Engineering? The aim of software engineering is to solve the software crisis Software is delivered.
CSE 308 Software Engineering Software Engineering Strategies.
1 Chapter 3 Prescriptive Process Models Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 6th edition by Roger S. Pressman.
Software Engineering process models
Incremental Model Requirements phase Verify Specification phase Verify
Chapter 2A 1 Software Engineering CHAPTER 2 SOFTWARE LIFE CYCLE MODELS by Farhad Mavaddat CS430 Notes Modified from the notes of Jerry Breecher of Clark.
Slide 3.1 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2002 SOFTWARE LIFE-CYCLE MODELS.
Ch2: Software Life Cycles Housekeeping Feedback from Wednesday Structured vs. Object Oriented Paradigm Structured: Data is an argument, functions separate,
Software Engineering 3156 Fall 2001 Section 1 17-Sep-01 Class #3: Life Cycles, XML, and Tools Phil Gross.
Software Processes Modified by Randy K. Smith
Capability Maturity Models Software Engineering Institute (supported by DoD) The problems of software development are mainly caused by poor process management.
Software Engineering II Lecture 3 Fakhar Lodhi. Software Life-Cycle Steps Life-cycle model (formerly, process model) –Requirements phase –Specification.
Slide 2.1 © The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2007 Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering Seventh Edition, WCB/McGraw-Hill, 2007 Stephen R. Schach.
Slide 2.1 Copyright © 2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Object-Oriented Software Engineering WCB/McGraw-Hill, 2008 Stephen R.
© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.