On 10/7/05, Vic Cekvenich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
_Listen_ to the customer,
+1 that requriements is the silver bullet. I address is w/ both mock ups
and prototypes... to demonstrate active listening.
In terms of requirements, my favorite silver bullet is
Cockburn-style Use Cases. Looking
On 10/10/05, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In terms of requirements, my favorite silver bullet is
Cockburn-style Use Cases. Looking back over some of the requirements
documents I've written over the the years, this Use Case format was my
missing link.
*
On 10/10/05, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The book is quite good. Low signal to noise ratio.
? ;-)
Michael.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/10/05, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cockburn includes examples of all that in his book. An author is just
not compelled to include more detail than is needed for a particular
case. Issues like granularity are a matter of taste for particular
team, not an issue proscribed by the
be the *implementors of change*
Have a good day all,
Martin-
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: user@struts.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 2:33 PM
Subject: OT: RE: Development philosophy and such (was: Base action class)
Hi Frank,
Here's the thing
On 10/7/05, Frank W. Zammetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we unintentionally hijacked a thread, so just in case we discuss
any further, a topic change is probably in order...
Tell me about hijacking ;)
On 10/7/05, Leon Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I'm absolutely with you, if
On Fri, October 7, 2005 1:27 pm, Michael Jouravlev said:
P.S. The last soldier's reply does not exist in original joke, but
many people I told it to could not get the joke without it ;-)
You really need to find some different people to talk to... the type of
people that wouldn't get it without
Message-
From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 1:10 PM
To: Leon Rosenberg
Cc: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Development philosophy and such (was: Base action class)
I think we unintentionally hijacked a thread, so just in case we discuss
any further
On Fri, October 7, 2005 2:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi Frank,
Here's the thing about technology, it *evolves*... and it comes as
really odd that you *belive* that people introduce new technology
solution, architecture, design changes, to just make them more
market-able!!.
It's not
, October 07, 2005 3:08 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Cc: user@struts.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: RE: Development philosophy and such (was: Base action
class)
On Fri, October 7, 2005 2:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi Frank,
Here's the thing about technology, it *evolves
On Fri, October 7, 2005 4:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And you are absolutely right that there is no justification for using
new technology just for the heck of it... (And there is a reason some
of the banks still have those mainframes lying around!.) like they say
if it ain't broken,
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:08 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Cc: user@struts.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: RE: Development philosophy and such (was: Base action
class)
On Fri, October 7, 2005 2:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi Frank,
Here's the thing
On 10/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Frank,
Sorry couldn't help but remark that... it seems some people are
forgetting the software engineering basics.. :)
There is no silver bullet!
Damned, and I actually thought I found one :-)
But seriously, I think the
_Listen_ to the customer,
+1 that requriements is the silver bullet. I address is w/ both mock ups
and prototypes... to demonstrate active listening.
.V
http://roomity.com (version 1.3 is live)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
14 matches
Mail list logo
