incubator-river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: MarshalledServiceItem
Date Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:35:54 GMT
Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
>> On 01-02-11 12:40, Dan Creswell wrote:
>>> Ah, I know Sim is gonna hate this but I feel the need to retain full 
>>> context
>>> for now....
>>
>> What i would prefer to see is:
>> - a use case defining internet deployment
>> - a proof of concept prototype implementing this use case
>> - define lessons learned
>>
>> If it turns out that there is something in the lookup what needs 
>> improvement, then we can change that.
>>
>> Better not use internet deployment in requirements discussions before 
>> whe have defined what it is. Thats too vague for me.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> If implementing Internet deployment is either impossible regardless of 
> the proposed changes, or can be done well without them, then making the 
> changes would be a mistake.
> 
> The easiest way to be sure about this is a use-case and proof of concept 
> prototype. The prototype can be used to demonstrate how proposed River 
> changes contribute to implementing the use-case.

Note also that even current proposals are exactly right about what needs 
to be changed in River for Internet deployment, this sequence does not 
make any change in the total amount of work, just in the order in which 
it is done.

The use-case is the core of a document explaining how to do Internet 
deployment, and the proof-of-concept prototype is the foundation for the 
example code we would need.

Patricia

Mime
View raw message