Re: up front designs always useless
vladimir_levin_at_yahoo.ca
Date: 01/13/05
- Next message: H. S. Lahman: "Re: small base class"
- Previous message: t_p_c: "Re: Better ways to implement DAOs"
- In reply to: Sylvia Gardner: "Re: up front designs always useless"
- Next in thread: Sylvia Gardner: "Re: up front designs always useless"
- Reply: Sylvia Gardner: "Re: up front designs always useless"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 13 Jan 2005 13:07:40 -0800
As far as your "what is the test" question goes, if you need
reliability, there should be a test that determines whether your
solution satisfies the requirement. Would you go into production by
just taking the vendor's word for it because it says so on the box?
"Now with failover!" Same with all of your other questions, of course
there must be a test. We have specific measurable performance
requirements. We select a solution based on those requirements. We
implement tests to make sure our solution really does satisfy them. And
so on. Testing some things can be really hard, but that's besides the
point. It is precisely why a) it is important to determine the real
business value of these requirements and b) to make sure the choses
approach meets them.
- Next message: H. S. Lahman: "Re: small base class"
- Previous message: t_p_c: "Re: Better ways to implement DAOs"
- In reply to: Sylvia Gardner: "Re: up front designs always useless"
- Next in thread: Sylvia Gardner: "Re: up front designs always useless"
- Reply: Sylvia Gardner: "Re: up front designs always useless"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|