[kplato] Functional Breakdown

[Chris Clarke]

On Monday 18 June 2001 16:51, Jim Sabatke wrote:
> Yup.  IMHO, we need to implemnt both the tree and digraph (map)
> functionality in order for the project to be of any use.  I'm wondering
> if we shouldn't implement a bare-bones tree and digraph functionality
> before adding anything else.  We could move forward in easy stages.

I agree.  I think we kind of need to work from the bottom up on this one. 

What I'd like to suggest for the next step forward:

We seem to have a fairly good agreement on the relationship between 
everything (subtasks/projects aside ;-).  Let's work on marking up the data 
dictionary in the design document to include what we have now.  That way 
everyone can look at it and make sure it fits there ideas, in a precisely 
defined manner.

>From there we can work on abstracting the data API and defining the database 
schema.  There's already a set vocabulary of objects for this type of work 
(projects, tasks, subtasks etc) so that's easy to define.  The way they're 
represented and the inheritance hierarchies become implementation details 
that we use to refine the definitions later.

Chris.
-- 
Chris Clarke
security@cfourconsulting.com
http://cfourconsulting.com