Patricia Shanahan wrote:
Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
On 01-02-11 12:40, Dan Creswell wrote:
Ah, I know Sim is gonna hate this but I feel the need to retain full
context
for now....
What i would prefer to see is:
- a use case defining internet deployment
- a proof of concept prototype implementing this use case
- define lessons learned
If it turns out that there is something in the lookup what needs
improvement, then we can change that.
Better not use internet deployment in requirements discussions before
whe have defined what it is. Thats too vague for me.
I agree.
If implementing Internet deployment is either impossible regardless of
the proposed changes, or can be done well without them, then making the
changes would be a mistake.
The easiest way to be sure about this is a use-case and proof of concept
prototype. The prototype can be used to demonstrate how proposed River
changes contribute to implementing the use-case.
Note also that even current proposals are exactly right about what needs
to be changed in River for Internet deployment, this sequence does not
make any change in the total amount of work, just in the order in which
it is done.
The use-case is the core of a document explaining how to do Internet
deployment, and the proof-of-concept prototype is the foundation for the
example code we would need.
Patricia
