From: John Morrison (jmorrison_at_ahc.net.au)
Date: 2002-01-30 10:21:39
Yeah sorry for that I'm a bit rusty on UML. :-(
That is exactly what I was trying to get across....but failed. :-(
I'm working on a design at the moment that will have all of the modules with
the same interface. Which means that ANY module can be "plugged" into any
other module.
Of course their place in the design will vary.
More when I've got a clearer picture of it, still got a few details to
hammer out! :-)
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sleeper75se [mailto:sleeper75se_at_yahoo.se]
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 January 2002 4:45 AM
> To: buildcheapeeg_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [buildcheapeeg] Re: SOFTWARE: Brainstorming - What do we want
> the software to do
>
>
> --- In buildcheapeeg_at_yahoogroups.com, "John Morrison" <jmorrison_at_ahc.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > I could put a spec together right now based on the modular design
> > I've been talking about for the past week or 2.
> >
> > BUT I'd love to get some feed back first.
>
> Hi John,
>
> some feedback:
>
> I think the dummy device and the hardware driver should the same type
> of object and use the same interface. That is, the processing core of
> the program should handle the data through the same interface,
> regardess of its origin (disk or real-time), so stage one should have
> only one box on this level. Other than that, it looks ok to me so far.
>
> Regards,
>
> Andreas
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> buildcheapeeg-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:37 BST