Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Either as a TCR, or as a requirement of the case, they don't integrate
> until it happens, so I fail to see what is gained.
It lets the ARC review reach closure quicker, which is good for all concerned.
> I'm not willing to allow a project to integrate with a structure which
> assumes one delivery model which may not be in-line with the Best
> Practice they are asked to deliver.
Neither am I - go back and reread what I wrote, including the part where I said
"codifies the ... design pattern that it used". I presume that the rest of this
review will sort out the specific requirements for that design-pattern, which
then (by definition) will be in-line with what they need to write about.
Based on this conversation, I predict that the design pattern will be either
1) Do it "Just like Perl" and "Just like Java", or
2) Don't do it like Perl of Java, instead do it <some other way> instead.
For the life of me, I don't know why you are pushing "door number 2",
but that seems to be your target...
> As Advisory, there is no guarantee it ever happens.
Again, my wording was "TCR - articulate this design pattern", which is not
an Advisory at all.
The only decoupling I was looking for was the wordsmithing of the BP itself,
not the determination of the proper design pattern.
-John
