On 10/10/05, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/10/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The book is quite good. Low signal to noise ratio.
>
> ? ;-)
Sorry, it's another dyslexic.Monday. s/Low/High.
I'm forever doing the same thing with least versus most siginficant dig
On 10/10/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cockburn includes examples of all that in his book. An author is just
> not compelled to include more detail than is needed for a particular
> case. Issues like granularity are a matter of taste for particular
> team, not an issue proscribed by
On 10/10/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The book is quite good. Low signal to noise ratio.
? ;-)
Michael.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cockburn includes examples of all that in his book. An author is just
not compelled to include more detail than is needed for a particular
case. Issues like granularity are a matter of taste for particular
team, not an issue proscribed by the format. I use a wiki to write my
use cases, but that's
On 10/10/05, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In terms of requirements, my favorite "silver bullet" is
> Cockburn-style Use Cases. Looking back over some of the requirements
> documents I've written over the the years, this Use Case format was my
> "missing link".
>
> * http://opensource2.at
On 10/7/05, Vic Cekvenich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > _Listen_ to the customer,
>
> +1 that requriements is the silver bullet. I address is w/ both mock ups
> and prototypes... to demonstrate active listening.
In terms of requirements, my favorite "silver bullet" is
Cockburn-style Use Cases.
e the *implementors of change*
Have a good day all,
Martin-
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 2:33 PM
Subject: OT: RE: Development philosophy and such (was: Base action class)
Hi Frank,
Here's the thin
_Listen_ to the customer,
+1 that requriements is the silver bullet. I address is w/ both mock ups
and prototypes... to demonstrate active listening.
.V
http://roomity.com (version 1.3 is live)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 10/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> Sorry couldn't help but remark that... it seems some people are
> forgetting the software engineering basics.. :)
>
> "There is no silver bullet!"
Damned, and I actually thought I found one :-)
But seriously, I thin
.
>
> Here's wishing you Happy Friday!,
>
> Cheers!,
>
> Dharmendra
> ps: have a super day!
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:08 PM
> To: Struts Users Mailing List
> Cc: user@struts
On Fri, October 7, 2005 4:10 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> And you are absolutely right that there is no justification for using
> new technology just for the heck of it... (And there is a reason some
> of the banks still have those mainframes lying around!.) like they say
> "if it ain't broken
Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:08 PM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Cc: user@struts.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: RE: Development philosophy and such (was: Base action
class)
On Fri, October 7, 2005 2:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Hi Frank,
&
On Fri, October 7, 2005 2:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Hi Frank,
>
>Here's the thing about technology, it *evolves*... and it comes as
> really odd that you *belive* that people introduce new technology
> solution, architecture, design changes, to just make them more
> market-able!!.
It's
Hi Frank,
Here's the thing about technology, it *evolves*... and it comes as really
odd that you *belive* that people introduce new technology solution,
architecture, design changes, to just make them more market-able!!.
I don't subscribe to this idea, but I would like to add however that
On Fri, October 7, 2005 1:27 pm, Michael Jouravlev said:
> P.S. The last soldier's reply does not exist in original joke, but
> many people I told it to could not get the joke without it ;-)
You really need to find some different people to talk to... the type of
people that wouldn't get it without
On 10/7/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we unintentionally hijacked a thread, so just in case we discuss
> any further, a topic change is probably in order...
Tell me about hijacking ;)
On 10/7/05, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I'm absolutely with you,
16 matches
Mail list logo
