On Jul 3, 2006, at 2:57 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Jim Marino wrote:
<cut/>
From the scenarios we should derive technical
specifications, designs that implement those specifications, and
tests that validate that the implementations match the
specifications.
This seems a bit heavy-weight for an open source project. Are you
suggesting we need to have a process where people provide
functional and technical specifications? Not to be alarmist but
if we required this, I think we will find it difficult to attract
developers.
I did not mean that we would necessarily produce formal specification
documents. However, there should be specifications in the sense of a
clear intention for what the code is supposed to do, whether explicit
or implicit, formal or informal, recorded possibly in formal documents
or possibly in posts to the mailing list, or even just contained in
people's heads.
Thanks for clarifying. FWIW, I find unit tests a good way to guard
against "pointless code" since it forces me to think about the
intention of a unit of code and limit its scope. I think we should
stress this across the code base. In peoples' heads does not sound
very useful to me (I assume you agree) since it is difficult to share
There is code with *NO* specification of any kind, written "ad hoc"
with no clear idea of what it is meant to achieve, but just does what
it does. I don't think we would really want that kind of code to be
part of Tuscany :-)
Yes I would hope all of us agree on that!
Simon
--
Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer
Hursley Park, Winchester, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
