RE: Supply Chain Spec Volunteer

[Neil Tiffin]

Jeff,

Using UML has been suggested for the past several years.  We did not 
use it in the last incarnation because there was not a way to convert 
UML into something usable and I was not interested in doing 
everything twice (and no one else volunteered to do it either.)

I do believe that we will need a business persons view (prose 
functionality) of the system design.  It does not matter to me which 
comes first.  But it will be needed at some point.

The current packages do contain some base decisions that were the 
result of several people around the world.  It would be good to build 
on that if possible.  Probably 80% of the package stuff is just place 
holders, waiting for discussion that never occurred.   That 80% can 
be ditched.

The main stuff that should be kept or should be built on is in the 
Base Package.

One other item that the last incarnation of the package specs had is 
that the documentation is built directly from the object definition 
and it was not possible for the system design, documentation, and 
objects to be different.  I personally think this is highly 
desirable, but most of the others on the team did not really see this 
as a big deal and so no need to keep at this point.

Having been through this type design with large systems keep in mind 
that the work load will only get more onerous as the system grows and 
some organization and automation now, while not entirely necessary, 
will pay hugely in the near future.

Neil
address@hidden


> Great, I've looked at the documents and will start downloading them.
> Question: What format are the graphics in? I don't recognize the
> extension...
>
> Unless anyone has an objection, I think I would like to use a light UML
> style to organize the requirements. That is, define the modules in terms of
> objects ('actors' or whatever) with their properties, events and methods.
>
> Jeff Childers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of Derek
> Neighbors
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 4:25 PM
> To: J. Childers
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Supply Chain Spec Volunteer
>
>
> Yes we woudl love it, the source of that pdf is in cvs and is actually
> in docbook (xml).  You can submit patches to it via address@hidden or
> address@hidden
>
> Neil Tiffin was heading up specs, but has other committments now, so
> sending to the core will work until we find a new 'head' of application
> speficication.  It's really a great job, in fact it even pays well, a
> 200% increase per day is *GUARANTEED*.  (assuming one is foolish enough
> to believe 0*200 = something valuable)
>
> -Derek
> On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 14:22, J. Childers wrote:
> >  Hey, do you guys want somebody to start fleshing out the SupplyChain.pdf
> document? I assume that
> >  it's a spec of sorts...
> >
> >  I would love to work on that. I have lots of detailed ERP product
> experience (from coding to
> >  implementation) and tons of opinions :).  Who's in charge of specs anyway?
> >
> >  Regards,
> >
> >  Jeff Childers
> >
> >  __________________________________________________
> >  Do You Yahoo!?
> >  HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
> >  http://www.hotjobs.com
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Gnue mailing list
> >  address@hidden
> >  http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnue
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnue mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnue
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnue mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnue