[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Locking support

From: Eric Siegerman
Subject: Re: Locking support
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:13:22 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 01:47:51PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Friday, August 31, 2001 at 16:15:31 (+0000), address@hidden wrote: ]
> If you're doing full OO design and development your developers should
> have a very good idea of who's working on what objects

Except for extreme programming, one of the tenets of which (as I
understand it) is that nobody "owns" the source -- if you need to
change something, anywhere in the source base, you just dive in
and do it.

> (and of course
> object definitions should all be in separate files too),

Except for Java, which doesn't *have* separate object-definition
files -- it uses a different mechanism for implementation hiding,
OO Perl, which doesn't really have any such mechanism.
Whether these are better or worse than the C++ approach is a
whole 'nother flamewar :-) The fact remains that it's how such
languages *do* work.

> In an OO environment I'd expect you to
> have design tools to provide or facilitate this communications mechanism
> (and whether they're paper trails, e-mail or similar electronic forums,
> or more formal CAD tools, is irrelevant).
> CVS is not a substitute for management, and CVS is not a substitute for
> developer communication.

Of course it isn't.  But neither are "a paper trail, e-mail...or
more formal CAD tools".  Or a Gantt chart, for that matter.  They
are *all* merely tools.  Only humans can manage or communicate.

What makes those other tools more appropriate than CVS for
helping people to communicate "who's editing what"?


|  | /\
|-_|/  >   Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont.        address@hidden
|  |  /
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not
necessarily a good idea.
        - RFC 1925 (quoting an unnamed source)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]