RE: Comments on the diagram (was: RE: [Pyatcron-devel-list] Cronbackend: a correction)

[Julien Olivier]

> You're right, the relation between GenericTask and ScheduledTask should be 
> (1,1). I've used the (1,*) first because I was thinking about the possibility 
> to have many tasks planed at the same time, but this sounds a bit complicated 
> to implement. Let's do it (1,1) for the moment.

The thing is that, if it's (1,1), the 2 classes should be merged IMO.
Except if you want to make it possible to be (1,*) in the future.
Personally, I see no advantages in sharing schedules. But maybe you do ?

> Hmm, I don't think so. I didn't found any class diagram updated with your 
> comments ;-) Don't worry, I'll do it
>  

Sorry, I really want your opinion before updating the diagram.

> I would like to take this opportunity to say something. In the first days 
> when this project was born, I was impressed how fast you've written code, 
> without any analysis. Now, after a week or two, I would like that we first 
> try to draft some UML schema and/or write specs before starting to code the 
> software. I know that this is boring, but it's the only way to have materials 
> to discuss on and a clear view of what to do in short term. Trust me, more 
> documentation we have, easyer will be coding and maintenance.
> 

I just want to add that I agree with you. That said, implementing a GUI
with GTK will always require to write a bunch of code which doesn't need
discussion (not more than the few emails we had before the mailing list
was up). As I am pretty experienced in building GTK interfaces, I just
wrote what I thought didn't need much planning. Of course, I stopped
when I thought a good architecture was being necessary.

-- 
Julien Olivier <address@hidden>