ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <>
Subject Re: Updated design docs
Date Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:29:09 GMT
At 08:50  9/1/01 -0500, James Cook wrote:
>I think this is a nice document, but it can hardly be considered as a
>requirements document. 

I don't think it was meant to be ;)

>I realize he has glommed onto the
>workspace concept introduced in AntFarm, but other than that, it looks
more like
>a personal design document.

Naah the Workspace concept is different from AntFarms. JDDs is more a
central controller project that sets properties and delegates to
sub-modules with properties set. AntFarms is more reusable project file for
components. Both have merits - the Modules concept formalizes a current
practice (namely top-level proect file) into architecture. AntFarm provides
the architecture but does not dictate the style.

>How should someone with a totally different approach submit their ideas? For
>example, I think my proposal has merit by being able to handle the concept
of a
>workspace as simply another Task. And an optional Task, at that. Should I
>produce a more detailed design document similar to James'? 

If you like ;)

>Should *all* of the proposal submitters do the same?

If you have a itch then scratch it ;)

>Why don't we spend a collective hour defining what a requirements document
is? I
>was waiting to see a req. doc before spending my time on a design document in
>order to make certain I address each requirement fully.

No one has done any yet. The best place to look was a list of requirements
I emailed that were either
* certain
* maybes
* possibilities
HoweverI couldn't tell you the subject of email its thread or the date I
posted so ... ;) If someone were to create a Functional Specificatioon
Document like Jon suggested then it would be great (*hint* *hint* ;])



| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |

View raw message