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 just me. Any textual medium could be used.
The book is quite good. Low signal to noise ratio. The most important concepts are covered first, and the latter parts of the book cover the high points in greater detail. * http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201702258/apachesoftwar-20/104-5159507-9383954 Right now, I'd list it as the second most important book for a new developer to read. The first being "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People", and the third being Refactoring. :) -Ted. On 10/10/05, Leon Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.atlassian.com/confluence/oss/display/STRUTS/Use+Cases > > Just got a short overview, must say I'm not impressed: > No PRE or POST conditions > No Invariants > FlowOfEvents could be structured better. > The granularity is far too large (The log facility example actually > contains 3 usecases). > > Personally I've learned Use Cases with RUP and XP. XP Cards are very > impresive and easy to handle. And they are not digitalized :-) > > regards > leon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
