[RFC] SRS Section 2

Hui Zhou zhouhui at wam.umd.edu
Thu Feb 3 19:38:27 PST 2005

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:22:38PM -0500, Hui Zhou wrote:
>Since I am in the mood and am talking about useless dtd, Jeremy, I 
>think your effort on SRS is useless. Disregard the fact that Neocool 
>take me as a joke, in many aspects I am in total agreement with him. 
>(He seldom speak outside irc, I have little chances to say it.) 
>Writing SRS hoping different coder will implement it according to SRS 
>is very similar to making dtd and profile and waiting for actual 
>program to use it. It will work similar to the dtd, provides more 
>hassels than helpful. The dtd demands writing multiple elements for a 
>simple bash command, which doubles the opening closing matching pairs 
>and again doubles the < > pairs. Any automated building scripts or 
>programs writer without the constrain of this dtd will not use a 
>profile that does that. As for SRS, without actuall writing the 
>program specifing this detail and that detail is absurd. It is 
>different when Kevin was in charge, which he has a code base to build 
>on and the SRS is essentially a to do list based the existing 
>implementation. Now the program is from scratch up, and the SRS has 
>little connection with the Neocool's code (if that counts). I just 
>can't help thinking what a useless effort you are doing. 

Now I recollected one point I forgot to say :)

The discussion and list of usage/features should be very useful, such as how 
the client/server would work, how different person interested in 
different functions etc, very interesting discussions. But specifing 
what profile format should be, how it needs validation or not and some 
other details in the SRS seems absurd. At least my approach is list 
the goal and let the programmer find its shortest or most efficient 
way to the goal. If the path is specified before actual walking the 
path, at least for me, will be very frustrated. 

Hui Zhou

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list