[Ampu-dev] Use cases, formal requirements, architecture

[Lee Braiden]

On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 08:52, address@hidden wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Seeing the static structure begin to form does help somewhat.
> I can begin to see what you meant about the organization hierarchy
> 
> I would like to offer an organization comment and an offer to work on
> something.
> It may sound too corporate, so if it isn't in the style of this group, just
> say so and I won't mention it again.  8)
> 

Good design techniques are always welcome, and good ways of
communicating the system's purpose are even more welcome.

> The project overview page looks to me to be a mix of 'system context' and
> partial 'use cases.'

It is =)

> Is there any desire to put these two types of documents into a more formal
> state?

There is =)

> Use cases help me a lot when figuring out a static structure.  They help me
> out even more in interpreting how the dynamic structure should work.  I
> know these types of requirements documents aren't all that glamorous to
> write because I don't see many people write them for free and/or open
> projects, but I would be willing to help make that happen if there is a
> chance they would get used and be useful to other developers here.

Any input is more than welcome.  I've intended to put some use case
diagrams together, but lack of time, and lack of knowledge have kept it
from happening so far.

I started reading a UML book in my previous job, but didn't get to
finish it before leaving.  So, my knowledge of anything beyond class
diagrams is a little incomplete right now. I'll go order my own copy of
that book as soon as I finish writing this.

Again, with formal requirements, I'm more than willing to do it, but I
haven't had much experience with such things.  Should be easy enough to
hijack a template from some other project, though =)

Of course, you're right that these would be a great help, and it is
truly sad that more open projects aren't that well organised.  I'm sure
some would grow much more rapidly if they just made things easier to get
into.

> 
> I write these things on my own projects because I think it helps developers
> work together better.  Whether it does or not remains to be seen, though.
> If there is any interest, I can draft up a couple and show people before
> working them through to a more polished state.
> 
> -al
> 

I've no doubt it would be useful.  It would also be useful to see your
initial perspective on things without mine contaminating it too much. 
I'll try to find some time and draw up my own.  That way, we can compare
them -- I think it would be interesting to see what we come up with
seperately, although, as I say, I'm quite new to such things =)

On the subject of use cases... peer-to-peer and/or client-server
communication are issues I haven't thought of much.  Obviously, given
the long term goals, a p2p architecture would be more suitable
philosophically.  OTOH, your intent for the project would suit
client-server better, and it may well be more feasible for many of the
short-term goals, such as organisation of small groups, etc.  In any
case, servers would be peers unto themselves, since they need to
distribute information between each other.

I expect the best way to solve this is to clearly define client and
server components of the system, but allow them both to be implemented
within a single peer.  Any thoughts on that?

On your other question, of interest, well... =)  The group is currently
composed of you, and myself, so that's all the interest you'll get for
now =)  Feel free to advertise =^)

On that note, I'd like to reply to your last email by forwarding to this
group, if only for archival purposes.  Is that OK?


Off to order that book, then... =)


-- 
Lee Braiden,

Lead Developer,
A More Perfect Union.

http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/ampu/
mailto:address@hidden
ICQ: 24346459
Jabber: address@hidden