ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Cook" <>
Subject Re: Updated design docs
Date Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:50:27 GMT
I think this is a nice document, but it can hardly be considered as a
requirements document. There is way too much *how* things will work as opposed
to *what* needs to be accomplished. I don't want to rabble-rouse (sp?), but
isn't James simply documenting AntEater? I realize he has glommed onto the
workspace concept introduced in AntFarm, but other than that, it looks more like
a personal design document.

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

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.


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Duncan Davidson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:29 AM
Subject: Updated design docs

> I expanded a bit the docs I've been working on tonight. There's more to do
> obviously, but what's there merits review and comment. They do go a bit more
> into some of the details -- and sometimes in a way that expects you to have
> a pretty good grasp of concepts (did I say that there's more to do. :)
> Also, I'm on the road right now with intermittent net access and so won't be
> turning around mail too quickly.
> --
> James Duncan Davidson                              
>                                                                   !try; do()
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message