Stephen McConnell wrote:
That would defeat the purpose of the specification. We would simply be regenerating another insufficient specification.
<snip/>
Is this not falling back into the AMTAGS V1 trap - the insufficient specification that won't deliver on its promise.
could you please spend an afternoon reading about extreme programming,
http://www.extremeprogramming.org/
for example. Disregard the cheesy name. You really don't get it. Any specification not developed according to at least some of the principles underlying XP (in particular, incremental development) is going to be subject to overspecification. Overspecification is worse than underspecification.
Of course, if you actually follow XP-style methodology, the need for specification goes away as the specs are encoded in the unit tests.
"AMTAGS V1" does not promise anything. Nor should V2 or V3. You guys should just write avalon-meta and implement it in our three containers without worrying toooo much at this point as to whether an attribute will be optional or not and how exactly that is to be worded.
The real world will show what parts will go unused in the majority of systems, and those parts you can then dub optional.
all IMNHSO.
cheers!
- Leo
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
