hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roland Weber <ROLWE...@de.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Wiki: Use Cases
Date Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:40:50 GMT
Hi Oleg,

I do have a tendency for overdesigning :-) I'm probably looking
too much at where I want to get instead of where I start.

I fully agree that the template in it's current form will
discourage some people, just because of the size of it. On
the other hand, I like the idea of a fully structured collection
of use cases with all the stuff in the template.
It's somehow similar with the categories. Once we have over
200 use cases, we sure want some kind of structure in there.
I thought of the "Engineered Use Cases" as a place where I can
put some of the things I thought about when discussing the
HLCA :-)
And finally, I read that Wiki pages can not easily be deleted,
which makes me hesitant about redundant and nonsensical contributions.

So I see two possibilities:
1) forget about the fully structured collection
2) have a sandbox for easy submission of use cases, and a separate
   fully structured collection maintained by volunteers that process
   input from the sandbox and the mailing lists

Obviously, I would prefer the second choice. And I volunteer to
add some more fully structured use cases over time.

What do you (all) think?


Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> 
15.02.2005 21:57
Please respond to
"HttpClient Project"

HttpClient Project <httpclient-dev@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Wiki: Use Cases

Hi Roland,

Just a few thoughts about the new use case resources:

I think we should keep the entry barrier as low as possible. The users
should be able to type away in wiki without having to spend a good deal
of time studying the API redesign proposal or any other resources. I
would prefer to deal with 30% rate of completely nonsensical or
redundant postings rather end up with a few or none at all because
people gave up somewhere half way in the process. We ought to suggest a
structure but we should not insist on people strictly following it. 

Do we really care if a use case falls into any of categories:
Application, Middleware, Engineered or anything else? Use cases can be
semi-structured or un-structured. Eventually the relevant data should
end up in Bugzilla/JIRA in a form of feature requests. 

This is terrific and very detailed stuff probably worth half a day of
work. I seriously doubt, though, we'll have many submissions of this
quality. We should be realistic and encourage simple postings along this
line: "Wouldn't it be cool if HttpClient 4.0 supported automatic
redirects on POST methods?"

> 1) procedure for new use cases (see a.2)
>    Should we encourage users to enter new use cases
>    directly in the wiki, or should we ask them to
>    always post them to the user mailing list first?

The former in my opinion. 

>    Posting first would help to avoid duplicates, but
>    it is a break of media. Users that browse from the
>    web page to the wiki could be discouraged by having
>    to subscribe to the mailing list.
> 2) template for use cases (see b,d)

Absolutely. Very simple and non-intrusive, though.

> 3) wording of the RfUC (see a.1)
>    The first impression sticks...

Looks good to me

> 4) categories for use cases (see c)
>    Easy to change, hence lowest importance.

See above

> What do you think?

You rock

> cheers,
>   Roland



To unsubscribe, e-mail: httpclient-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message