#22 closed defect (fixed)
definition of psMemBlock (and others structs)
| Reported by: | Owned by: | eugene | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | high | Milestone: | |
| Component: | PSLib SDRS | Version: | unspecified |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Michael.Berning@… |
Description
I've added elements to the struct psMemBlock, as found in 2.1.3 of the SDRS, to
accomplish some enhanced functionality. As written, it is not clear if the
given definition is exclusively defined (it must be exactly as it appears) or
minimally defined (it should have at least these members).
I'd suggest rewording to make the struct definition clearly a suggestion of a
possible implementation (a 'should' or 'may', not a 'must' as according to the
latest SRS terminology).
Change History (3)
comment:1 by , 22 years ago
comment:2 by , 22 years ago
| Cc: | added |
|---|
Yes, we do indeed disagree on this. I think the requirements specification
really shouldn't define the implementation details that rigidly.
It should be possible to implement the requirements in a manner that allows some
enhancements/fixability to be made, but trying to fix such implementation
details as data structures in the requirements specification can inhibit such
things.
As far as you liking to knowing about it, I think the Doxygen and/or SDD
documentation will explain the implementation sufficiently without requiring
every implementation decision to be a "design by committee" opportunity.
And yes, once final delivery happens, the rules definitely change (CCB, etc.),
but my question was meant to pertain to the initial implementation phase of the
code.
-rdd
comment:3 by , 22 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
we have agreed to keep each other informed in a timely manner (more frequently
than waiting until the major releases) about proposed changes to structures, and
we will use the mail-lists and bugzilla as appropriate to discuss & document the
changes.
I disagree with the suggestion that the provided definition of structs in the
SDRS be a minimal subset (should) rather than a requirement (must). The SDRS
should define the actual structure, so that we are all working on the same page.
it. During this development stage, that can happen loosely, but once we go to
CCB (eventually), these additions will have to be approved.