Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!igor!yoda!jls From: jls@yoda.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Reusability considered harmful??(!!) Keywords: Reusability, Division of Labor Message-ID: Date: 15 Feb 91 04:17:07 GMT References: <6108@stpstn.UUCP> <4842@cui.unige.ch> <318@smds.UUCP> <27B2EADB.5840@tct.uucp> <1991Feb11.225546.15269@cbnewsm.att.com> Sender: news@Rational.COM Lines: 18 >In that scenario, you wouldn't buy a _stack_ from the >Reusable Software Shop; you'd buy a _stack builder_. Disagree. A stack is not a sufficiently macro-scale abstraction to require such overkill. A much more appropriate component requiring configurability might be an entire message passing layer: this is a large scale chunk of a system, highly reusable if implemented properly, and greatly in need of "strapable" options in order to be flexible enough to meet many different networking protocols, communication requirements, etc. In this case, yes, it makes sense to provide lots and lots of configuration options, which could be supplied as arguments (to subprograms and/or generics), read in from configuration files, etc. This is the strategy taken by one of our more successful customers. ---- These are my opinions.