I think that sounds really good Dan. I'd love to know more about what's driving our users or potential users.
This could be seen as a nitpick, but I think also there's the potential for some confusion, since you talk about 'abstract scenarios'. I don't see scenarios as particularly abstract, since they are instances of the more abstract 'use case', i.e. a scenario is a single given path through the use case, documenting only one path wherever the use case gives choices. I guess what we would really like to capture are the use cases, but getting some scenarios together is probably not a bad way to begin. So I think your "stories" are really the scenarios, and your scenarios are the use cases. Cheers, Kelvin. On 15/01/07, Dan Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, There have been a number of postings about scenarios. For example: - In July http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg04490.html about JSF using Tuscany - In Nov http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00319.htmlas part of the what next for C++ - More recently http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00416.htmland - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg12818.html Would it be useful to document and maintain a set of scenarios that Tuscany does/will support? These could be used to validate and help guide what get developed, rather than relying "what next ?" postings (more permentant record). It could also be used to help identify complexity and completeness. Lastley it might also make it clearer to differenticate Tuscany from similar projects. Perhaps a way to kick off would be to start gathering some user stories (rather than more abstract scenarios) WDYT ? Cheers, Dan
