At 08:50 9/1/01 -0500, James Cook wrote: >I think this is a nice document, but it can hardly be considered as a >requirements document.
I don't think it was meant to be ;) >I realize he has glommed onto the >workspace concept introduced in AntFarm, but other than that, it looks more like >a personal design document. Naah the Workspace concept is different from AntFarms. JDDs is more a central controller project that sets properties and delegates to sub-modules with properties set. AntFarms is more reusable project file for components. Both have merits - the Modules concept formalizes a current practice (namely top-level proect file) into architecture. AntFarm provides the architecture but does not dictate the style. >How should someone with a totally different approach submit their ideas? For >example, I think my proposal has merit by being able to handle the concept of a >workspace as simply another Task. And an optional Task, at that. Should I >produce a more detailed design document similar to James'? If you like ;) >Should *all* of the proposal submitters do the same? If you have a itch then scratch it ;) >Why don't we spend a collective hour defining what a requirements document is? I >was waiting to see a req. doc before spending my time on a design document in >order to make certain I address each requirement fully. No one has done any yet. The best place to look was a list of requirements I emailed that were either * certain * maybes * possibilities HoweverI couldn't tell you the subject of email its thread or the date I posted so ... ;) If someone were to create a Functional Specificatioon Document like Jon suggested then it would be great (*hint* *hint* ;]) Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
