# Design timelines

**URL:** <https://rubytalk.org/t/design-timelines/42215>\
**Category:** ruby-talk\
**Created:** [15 November 2007 12:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/design-timelines/42215 "2007-11-15T12:10:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![7rans](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/7/a8b319/32.png) [@7rans](https://rubytalk.org/u/7rans)\
**Post date:** [15 November 2007 12:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/design-timelines/42215/1 "2007-11-15T12:10:31Z")

</div>

hi--

i'm doing a work on a large system and while i have no problems  
getting intot he bit and pieces of code, i'm finding it much more  
difficult to put together the "larger picture". i was hoping that it  
would sort of form organizically as I worked on variouis nuts and  
bolts, but even if plausible, i releaize that it's goinn to take too  
much time. so i'm thinking that i am going to have to just sit down  
for a spell and follow the systems execution thru, line by line.

in doing so , it's seems a waste to be the only one who benefits from  
my drudger --it should be a good opportunity to do some documentation.  
but i wonder if i could go a step further, is there any precedence for  
creating "timeline" specifications?

t.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Forum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/43a26b/32.png) [@Forum](https://rubytalk.org/u/Forum)\
**Post date:** [15 November 2007 13:11 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/design-timelines/42215/2 "2007-11-15T13:11:12Z")

</div>

> hi--
> 
> i'm doing a work on a large system and while i have no problems  
> getting intot he bit and pieces of code, i'm finding it much more  
> difficult to put together the "larger picture". i was hoping that it  
> would sort of form organizically as I worked on variouis nuts and  
> bolts, but even if plausible, i releaize that it's goinn to take too  
> much time. so i'm thinking that i am going to have to just sit down  
> for a spell and follow the systems execution thru, line by line.
> 
> in doing so , it's seems a waste to be the only one who benefits from  
> my drudger --it should be a good opportunity to do some documentation.  
> but i wonder if i could go a step further, is there any precedence for  
> creating "timeline" specifications?

Not sure I am with you, but if I guess correctly each method call  
would be a fine grained timeline.  
Maybe it would be nice to have a timeline for each method call that is  
defined in a different "container" (stealing from you ;).

e.g.

class A  
&nbsp;&nbsp;def a; b; end # not a timeline as b is defined in A  
&nbsp;&nbsp;def b; @x.c end # a timeline as c is not defined in B  
end

class B  
&nbsp;&nbsp;def c:  
&nbsp;&nbsp;def e  
end

one could construct a "contianer" stack during runtime and trigger a  
timeline event whenever a stack event occurs  
one could than tigger a timeline event depending on lots of info from  
the stack, e.g. not to trigger if the container of the top of the  
stack does not change.

just 0.02€

Robert

> **···**
>
> On Nov 15, 2007 1:10 PM, Trans \<transfire@gmail.com\> wrote:
> 
> > t.
> 
> --  
> what do I think about Ruby?  
> [http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/](http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/)