[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OTOH, it is probably significant that Angay and Oldfield > are both experienced _Analysts_. What you say is perfectly > okay at _Design_ time, but it presupposes that design > decisions have been made; or worse, it requires one to > make design decisions.
Paul, I appreciate that you are an expert. So am I. My analytical work has been good enough for use in the space shuttle arm and the space station arm projects (plus lots of other stuff), so I am inclined to value my own authority pretty high. Persuasive arguments are another matter, though. Thanks, Paul, for reminding me of an old argument. IMO, it is not practical to make everything completely scalable or completely portable. Some high-level design constraints *are* requirements in a world of limited budgets and known marketing plans, and there is no benefit in making analysis more abstract than it needs to be. OTOH, there are remarkable stories of portable and scalable software creating very profitable opportunities (I've got a couple of these). Like almost every decision, this is a saw-off. Plainly, I decide the level of abstraction of my analytical model, and it is better to do this consciously, with a choice of the domain of analysis that seems safe for my business. I appreciate being led to this point. -Eric ************************************************************************ * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support * * Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Archive of messages: * http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: <BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum *************************************************************************
