ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Builds-R-Us <>
Subject Re: Updated design docs
Date Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:06:31 GMT
It shouldn't take an hour to define :^)

A requirements document should state WHAT the system should
do, in an implementation free way.

A design document should state HOW the system is going to
be written so as to meet the requirements stated in the requirements
document. It's much harder to write requirements without slipping
into 'design mode'. Ideally, every requirement in the requirements
document is referenced in the design document (traceability).

However, as indicated by the subject, James didn't claim to
be providing a requirements doc, but a design doc. Admittedly,
it would be easier to evaluate the design if we had requirements
to judge the design against, and for alternative designs to be
proposed an similarly evaluated.

James Cook wrote:

> 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.
> jim
> ----- 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:
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message