Talk:Feature-driven development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Method engineering    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Method engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.


Is it just me, or does this article (and the introduction in particular) sound far too laudatory and gushing? --maru (talk) contribs 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that something all the methodology pages suffer to some extent? Jdmarshall 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there any particular phrases of concern? Perhaps these can be tuned. (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Another question is whether this method should really belong to the family of agile methods - its more of a cut down traditional method than an agile manifesto type approach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjeremyrose (talkcontribs) 11:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Although Agile software development practices have been evolving over the last decade, as one of the earlier Agile fameworks (and still in use) this is still recognized as an Agile methodology. Development by feature is now a common recommendation when scaling the Scrum methodology for example. Some parts of FDD conflict with other Agile methodologies (e.g. code ownership) and FDD does have a much heavier emphasis on design however the ethos and fundamental practices are aligned. In situations where significant cross-organizational scaling is required with highly complex interdependent applications, some experienced agile teams have found the design emphasis in FDD to be a better fit than (for example) Scrum & XP. (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see it as close enough to be part of any Agile discussion. This clearly belongs within the history of Agile manifesto's actual implementations. This technique's description needs to be preserved even if it falls out of favor. I would take the more inclusive approach and attempt to map backwards in time seeking all the paths of history that come together as Agile. I would also branch outward from Agile to scrap up any bits of information to know the successful and yet to be determined routes to the future. This will serve as a basis for the eventual reconstruction or replacement of Agile later. Johnswolter (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


The article references Tables 2 and 3... only Table 1 is actually on the page. (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tables 2 & 3 are currently displayed after the references. Although it's not natural for many casual readers to read that far down they are there. They're pretty big - where should these normally go? (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)