We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for software libraries, tutorials, tools, books, or other off-site resources. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
接受
或继续使用网站,即表示您同意使用 Cookies 和您的相关数据。
发布评论
评论(2)
我所知道的唯一一个是我可以在 ICONIX Software Engineering 公司网站上找到的:
我可能是错的,但对我来说,ICONIX 方法并没有真正广泛使用,而且它
看起来更像是销售他们的Enterprise Architect产品的一种方式。
就我个人而言,我从未通过太多以 UML 为中心的方法(类似于 MDA)取得过巨大成功。
The only ones I know are the one I could find on the ICONIX Software Engineering corporate website:
I may be wrong but to me, the ICONIX methodology isn't really widely used and it
looks more like a way to sell their Enterprise Architect product.
And personally, I never had big successes with too much UML centric approaches (à la MDA).
我喜欢这个过程,并在几个项目中很好地使用了它。我只想给出一些我的想法:
Iconix 基于领域驱动设计。域名是第一位的。这很好,但是我们需要注意边界条件。简而言之,领域驱动设计适用于相对复杂的项目。可能根本不存在作为设计模式的领域模型,因为它可能不是每个系统的最佳选择。
Iconix 采用复杂的设计。并不是每个项目都需要它,也不是每个项目都有能够吸收它的开发人员。有大量以数据为中心或纯粹数据操作的应用程序。
没有社区,网站陈旧。我不知道有谁使用这个过程。
I like the process and used it well in several projects. I just want to give some of my thoughts on it:
Iconix is based on domain driven design. Domain comes first. This is fine, however we need to be aware of a boundary conditions. To put is simply, domain driven design works for the relatively complex projects. There may not be a domain model as design pattern at all since it may not be the best choice for every system.
Iconix assumes sophisticated deisgn. Not every project needs it and not every project has developers capable of absorbing it. There are tons of data-centric or purely data manipulation applications out there.
No community, stale web site. I don't know of anybody who uses the process.