TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> "Network management vendors have heard the cries of administrators who
> want
> more granularity in their traffic monitoring and analysis solutions"
>
> Is this term accepted in computer science or elsewhere in the technology
> industry, or is it just jargon that is being used in place of a more
> precise
> term?
>
I'm taking my understanding of granularity from how it's used in the world
of SGML/XML. Granularity there, as I understand it, refers to the size of a
minimally reusable unit. More granularity allows you more control, but it
can also increase complexity. If you extend this to OOP, my guess is that it
would refer to the lowest level of an object tree (which is still sort of
the same as in SGML), the lowest level at which an object can be reused, or
the lowest level at which an object can be controlled. (Perhaps Ms.
Gallagher could enligten us here. :-)
High granularity in the example you cite suggests that a high degree of
individual control is available for each queue. I don't know if there really
is such thing as "no granularity." The first example simply has very coarse
granularity.
Bill Burns - Eccentric Technology Consultant
INT'L.com Design & Development
billdb -at- intl -dot- com
"Being disintegrated makes me very angry."
