[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ormf-dev] What else do we want to do
Apologies for the delay in this reply.
Yes, Joel and I have been giving a lot of thought about other
requirements types, as well as traceability. A good deal of the
current architecture was designed with generalisation to various types
of requirements in mind. However, as we have pointed out in other
threads, the move to join Eclipse and propose ORMF means that more
flexibility and, above all, capacity for extension by third parties is
required, and those are the reasons why we think the rework of the
core components we are embarking upon is needed.
Although thinking about other types of requirements is very important,
Joel and I think that the first and foremost step is to solidify our
vision for the core and THEN use other types of requirements as a tool
to verify whether or not our core is sufficiently generic and
extensible. So the discussion around other types of requirements and
their specifications could start at that point.
Let me know if any of this is still not clear.
Thanks and regards,
On 19 Sep 2008, at 22:40, Flavelle Ballem wrote:
So we will have useme. We have other types of requirements, in
to use cases. Have we given thought to how we want to capture those?
Also, do we have thoughts around how we implement traceability among
various requirements? And do we know, at the end of the day, what we
want to be able to get out of the requirements?
Is this the appropriate time to be asking these questions, and have
already been asked and answered (in which case, I missed something,
which would not be the first time).
Just asking - in case I've missed something along the way. If I
missed something, then should we start thinking about these things. If
we should start thinking about these things, then what's the best
start the discussion around building the specifications.
ormf-dev mailing list