Top-down or bottom-up?

[Rick Jelliffe]

From: David Megginson <david at megginson.com>

>As Paul Prescod has pointed out, however, in both cases the process is
>really iterative: in a bottom-up approach, it's often useful to stop
>and throw together a straw-man architecture to see if what we've done
>so far makes sense together; in a top-down approach, it's often useful
>to stop and throw together some proof-of-concept components, to see if
>there will be any obvious implementation problems

Good point. (In my book I point out that) Maler and el Anderloussi's
method
is top-down, then bottom up, with a little middle out. Theirs is the
most
well document formal methodology.

Rick Jelliffe


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)