AsBuilt Presentation 4112001 Team Information Team SCRAT Phil

As-Built Presentation 4/11/2001

Team Information Team SCRAT: Phil Dudas Bryan Schnebly Sponsor: Harlan Mitchell, Intel Corp.

Introduction Project Description n Design / Development Paradigms n Tools / Languages Used n Requirements and Specifications n Architecture Issues n Schedule / Resources n Final Comments n

Project Description n Goal: Help station controller developers gather requirements – SCST (Station Controller Survey Tool) » » » SC developers write SCST question list file SCST produces executable “Wizard” for tool users Tool users answer questions, sending results back to SC developers – CSCP (Customizable Station Controller Prototype) » Tool users manipulate a clone of real SC » The finished custom SC will be used by SC developers to provide the desired functionality

SCST Screenshot

CSCP Screenshot

Design / Development Paradigms n SCST – We used the classic Waterfall method (OOP) – Reason: » Requirements well known from start of project n CSCP – Waterfall with Prototyping (OOP) – Reasons: » Requirements could have changed (new SC under Development) » Highly GUI-centric program

Development Issues CSCP Prototyping would have been more effective with more detailed sponsor feedback n A structured iterative approach would have been more effective for both tools n

Tools / Languages Used n n n Language: Java 2 Forte JAR files – – n Books – – n CSCP Version control CSCP Prototype Delivery – executable JAR Professional Java Programming Java in a Nutshell Java Foundation Classes in a Nutshell Problem Solving with Java API

Requirements and Specifications Requirements didn’t change much n New SC GUI is in development still, but looks just like the old one – didn’t affect us n Web implementation not a requirement n – Prototype didn’t work for “Intel special” IE – Did work on all required platforms – So … we didn’t need to worry about it

SCST Architecture and Changes n Original Components: – Parser, Saver, Question. List, QUI, Doc. Writer n Final Components: – QUI remained the same – Question. List became just a vector of Question objects in the QUI – Question types do their own parsing – Doc. Writer simplified

CSCP Architecture and Changes n Original Components: – GUI, Text. Field. List, Menu. Item. List, Demo. Scripts, Reader, Saver, Doc. Writer n Final Major Components: – – – GUI (with file I/O – no more Reader and Saver) Toolkit (source of new text fields for Prototype) Prototype (contains text fields, menu items, table, and message area) – Demos (Demo. States, Demo. Dialogs, created from text script) – Doc. Writer dropped for now – not a requirement

Architecture Issues Design was left at too high a level n Better component design wasn’t done until implementation n Original design didn’t have logical components correct n The lesson - more detailed design n

Schedule and Differences Research: 12/15 -1/16 – done on time n Design: 1/31 -2/12 – about a week late, but was too high level n Implementation: 2/15 -3/28 n – CSCP was about two weeks late – SCST is almost done now n Testing: 3/29 -4/11 – Most testing done during implementation

Schedule Issues Schedule was optimistic in beginning n Needed firmer deadlines with real penalties n Shouldn’t have been planning on slip time n More defined resource allocation n

Final Comments Start implementation when we scheduled it n Schedule correctly and then follow it n Go further with detailed design n

Any Questions?