Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
How about: don't publish what you don't own? Publishing schemas that include meaningless definitions has an analogue in software development, which is writing untestable code: ie code designed to handle a circumstance that has not yet occurred and may never occur. It's always a bad idea. Seems to be generated by people with clever ideas about future-proofing, but it seems as if we are wrong more often than not about where the future is headed. One practical approach to dealing with this tendency is to insist that any schema definitions be backed up by requirements, functional specifications, sample data and use cases, together with tests to prove the data functions as intended in at least some dummy test environment. Just like real requirements! The proponents either pay the freight, if the feature is really deemed to be important, or it gets dropped as low priority. -Mike On 11/28/2011 04:11 PM, John Cowan wrote: > cbullard@h... scripsit: > > >> Don't make law you can't enforce. Don't create requirements you cannot >> prove are necessary to the consuming process. >> > Well, that's fine if you know what the consuming process is, or at least what > it expects. But often you don't: you are publishing, and you don't know who > will subscribe. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
