Re: [logs] EventLog library

From: Darren Reed (avalonat_private)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 14:09:29 PST

  • Next message: marc: "Re: [logs] EventLog library"

    In some mail from Bennett Todd, sie said:
    > 2003-01-07T04:18:23 Darren Reed:
    > > 2003-01-07T04:09:21 Balazs Scheidler:
    > > Ok, so what you're saying is that you're wasting time by implementing
    > > a library to an interface that has not yet been finalised.
    > > As nice and easy as it is to cut code, "don't do that".
    > > Get the detailed design right, THEN cut code.
    > Whew. So never ever write code until you know precisely, for sure,
    > what it should accomplish. Prototyping is bogus.
    > I believe your position qualifies as "extreme".
    Well, I suppose I am being a bit extreme here but not that far.
    > > > I don't thing the version number alone means anything
    > > > 'unprofessional'. And by the way the library was not fully
    > > > publicized, it was a release for the log-analysis mailing list
    > > > for review.
    > > and it is an open, public mailing list.
    > where we're undertaking to work out concrete details of a good API.
    > Balazs' implementation was offered for us to see whether it's along
    > the right lines or not. At least that was my take on it.
    That's not the point being argued.  What was in contention was whether
    or not it was a public or private release and my view is (simply) if it
    is announced to a public list then it is public - regardless of whether
    or not it is just for us or just for Queen Mary or George Bush.
    LogAnalysis mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 09:22:18 PST