SDL-News: task force

Subject: SDL-News: task force
KEMoss6#aol.com
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 09:55:14 GMT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Mike Rudnick: "SDL-News: new-to-sdlnews question: Tau postmaster example"
• Previous message: Erik Mats: "RE: SDL-News: Remote procedure and process instantiation"

Dear All

I was prompted to write this email after I had read the email exchange
between Rick and William. Until then even though I have signed up to be a
member of
the task force I was not aware of any activity even though I had twice
corresponded with William on just that subject.

As far as I'm concerned the inner committee appears to be conducting affairs
behind closed doors. However I have now read the latest documentation the
draft specification and I have a few observations.

I feel that the specification needs to be presented in graphical format as
this is much easier to understand especially for new users and for especially

for users who are programming experts. A diagram helps immensely to explain
an
idea and can be just as rigorous in definition. Many of the paragraphs in the

document could be reduced if only the relevant diagram were present.

I feel that SDl should be universal and separate domains of interest are only

likely to lead to fragmentation of the SDL forum.

There is a section "State-Event matrix" which mentions constraints without
ever explaining what a constraint might be. If the subset is ever to be
considered a simplification then there needs to be less abstract ideas
incorporated.

As I understand one of the objectives is to make SDL more universally used
and this can only be achieved if the initial contact is easy to assimilate.

I also feel that the "Save" construct is much easier to understand than many
of ideas to be incorporated. I don't buy the idea that it complicates
matters.
If a queue has to be designed to cover the loss of the "save" construct, the
queue will have to managed.

Regards Keith Moss (Task force member?)

ps I have sent this to the SDL news as I appear to have no priviledges to
send to the task force even though I'm supposed to be a member

Dear All

I was prompted to write this email after I had read the email exchange
between Rick and William. Until then even though I have signed up to be a member of
the task force I was not aware of any activity even though I had twice
corresponded with William on just that subject.

As far as I'm concerned the inner committee appears to be conducting affairs
behind closed doors. However I have now read the latest documentation the
draft specification and I have a few observations.

I feel that the specification needs to be presented in graphical format as
this is much easier to understand especially for new users and for especially
for users who are programming experts. A diagram helps immensely to explain an
idea and can be just as rigorous in definition. Many of the paragraphs in the
document could be reduced if only the relevant diagram were present.

I feel that SDl should be universal and separate domains of interest are only
likely to lead to fragmentation of the SDL forum.

There is a section "State-Event matrix" which mentions constraints without
ever explaining what a constraint might be. If the subset is ever to be
considered a simplification then there needs to be less abstract ideas incorporated.

As I understand one of the objectives is to make SDL more universally used
and this can only be achieved if the initial contact is easy to assimilate.

I also feel that the "Save" construct is much easier to understand than many
of ideas to be incorporated. I don't buy the idea that it complicates matters.
If a queue has to be designed to cover the loss of the "save" construct, the
queue will have to managed.

Regards Keith Moss (Task force member?)

ps I have sent this to the SDL news as I appear to have no priviledges to send to the task force even though I'm supposed to be a member

--End text from KEMoss6#aol.com to sdlnews --- For extra SDL Forum Society benefits join at