If you think that planning, examining or even improving the structure
or River in relation to its stakeholders is just "talk", or that high
cohesion and low coupling just as much as good documentation and
comprehensive testing are not values independent of needs and
requirements of the stakeholders, then the future looks bleak. I
don't think you really want to take this tack. I think we can say
that certain things are bad whatever your requirements or needs.
There are legitimate architectural standards, e.g., the ilities that
have nothing to do with function.
Mike
On Dec 11, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Wade Chandler wrote:
I think you'll find in any debate, more scientific in nature at
least, which by itself precludes politics :-D, devoid of words, and
more filled with examples of the thing being debated will be more
tolerable for those in the discussion. We can talk architecture all
day long, but without an understanding of exactly what you or we are
talking about, those pieces we are referring, and specifically what
River is, will be, and everyone's understanding of those things,
cohesion, decoupling, architecture (to a degree) are all irrelevant.
The needs and requirements and what that means at large are needed
first. The horse before the cart.
Wade
==================
Wade Chandler, CCE
Software Engineer and Developer, Certified Forensic Computer
Examiner, NetBeans Dream Team Member, and NetBeans Board Member
http://www.certified-computer-examiner.com
http://wiki.netbeans.org/wiki/view/NetBeansDreamTeam
http://www.netbeans.org
Michael McGrady
Senior Engineer
Topia Technology, Inc.
1.253.720.3365
[email protected]
