the second review takes place in a couple of weeks:
Date: 9th July
As in the first Review, each group presents separately and has a time slot of 45 minutes (25 min presentation, 20 min discussion).
The groups present in the following order:
10:00 - TimeScale
10:45 - Performance Software Engineering
11:30 - DoQuomentors
12:15 - Lunch break
13:00 - GIMP
13:45 - Cloud Camel
14:30 - Code Monkeys
The slides should be presented by two group members.
Remember that different team members must do the presentation in each review.
Again, attendance of all team members is required.
If you can not attend, send me a mail.
In the beginning of your talk give a brief introduction to your team and your project.
This should be kept shorter than in the first review.
At the end of your talk present an updated time schedule for you project.
The schedule must include:
- Overall progress, e.g., project burndown chart
- Remaining estimated work and remaining budget for different activities, e.g., documentation, implementation
- Changes made to the estimation since the last review
The main topics for this review is the design document.
Compared to SC3, we'd like to get a deeper insight into your design.
The overall points from SC3 still apply:
- Present a high-level overview of your architecture along with the major design goals
- Introduce the (non-)functional requirements that influenced your design and discuss how they are related to your design goals
- Explain why your design meets those requirements
- Which alternate designs were considered by you? Based on which consideration did you decide for the final design?
- pick out the most important (or most diffcult) requirement and discuss in detail how your architecture was affected
- discuss important subsystems in detail, including interfaces and their interplay
- illustrate architecture patterns and/or design patterns used in your system (and why they were applied)
- illustrate extension points of your system
I wish you all great success for your presentations.
Please note that the reviews are relevant for grading.
We strongly recommend to get feedback on the presentation from your group advisor!