226 lines
7 KiB
Markdown
226 lines
7 KiB
Markdown
|
# Product Requirements Document (PRD)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## Product: **Binect-JS API Wrapper**
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 1. Product Overview
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 1.1 Product Name
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
**Binect-JS API Wrapper**
|
|||
|
|
(working title; final package naming is out of scope for this PRD)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 1.2 Product Intent
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Binect-JS is a **developer-facing integration product** that enables JavaScript developers to **interact reliably and intuitively with the Binect API** to send PDF documents as physical mail.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The product’s primary intent is to **lower the cognitive, technical, and experiential barrier** for first-time and recurring users of the Binect API—especially in browser-based and JavaScript-centric environments—without changing the underlying Binect service.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 1.3 Problem Statement
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
While the Binect API provides comprehensive functionality for physical mail dispatch, it presents several challenges to developers:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* The API is **low-level and REST-centric**, requiring significant upfront interpretation.
|
|||
|
|
* Developers must manually handle:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* authentication
|
|||
|
|
* base64 encoding
|
|||
|
|
* document lifecycle states
|
|||
|
|
* error interpretation
|
|||
|
|
* There is no **official JavaScript abstraction** or **exploratory tooling** that supports learning, testing, and safe experimentation.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As a result, developers face:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* higher onboarding friction
|
|||
|
|
* increased implementation errors
|
|||
|
|
* duplicated integration effort across projects
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 2. Target Users and Stakeholders
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 2.1 Primary Users
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* JavaScript and TypeScript developers
|
|||
|
|
* Frontend developers integrating physical mail into web applications
|
|||
|
|
* Full-stack developers building document workflows
|
|||
|
|
* Solution engineers evaluating Binect for customer projects
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 2.2 Secondary Stakeholders
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Product management (Binect ecosystem)
|
|||
|
|
* Technical sales and pre-sales
|
|||
|
|
* Developer support and onboarding teams
|
|||
|
|
* Partner developers building reusable integrations
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 3. Product Goals
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 3.1 Primary Goals
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* **Reduce integration effort** for JavaScript developers using the Binect API
|
|||
|
|
* **Increase correctness and reliability** of API usage
|
|||
|
|
* **Improve discoverability** of Binect API capabilities
|
|||
|
|
* **Support rapid experimentation** without backend infrastructure
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 3.2 Secondary Goals
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Serve as a **reference integration** for good API usage patterns
|
|||
|
|
* Act as a **learning surface** for understanding document validation and sending workflows
|
|||
|
|
* Provide a **shared vocabulary and structure** for downstream tooling and documentation
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 4. Scope
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 4.1 In Scope
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### Functional Expectations (Conceptual)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Enable JavaScript-based interaction with the Binect API for:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* uploading PDF documents
|
|||
|
|
* inspecting document readiness and validation state
|
|||
|
|
* modifying document-related parameters
|
|||
|
|
* triggering physical mail dispatch
|
|||
|
|
* observing sending status and outcomes
|
|||
|
|
* Provide an **interactive, browser-based explorer** that:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* allows credential input
|
|||
|
|
* allows safe execution of API calls
|
|||
|
|
* visualizes results in both structured and raw form
|
|||
|
|
* supports reusable, named “use case profiles”
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#### Usage Context
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Usable as:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* a **local developer tool**
|
|||
|
|
* a **hosted static web application**
|
|||
|
|
* Applicable to:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* exploratory usage
|
|||
|
|
* prototyping
|
|||
|
|
* production integration support
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 4.2 Explicit Non-Scope
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* No redesign or modification of the Binect backend API
|
|||
|
|
* No replacement of backend integrations or enterprise workflows
|
|||
|
|
* No PDF generation, editing, or layout tooling
|
|||
|
|
* No scheduling, batching, or business process orchestration
|
|||
|
|
* No commitment to a specific UI framework or architectural pattern
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 5. Assumptions and Constraints
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 5.1 Assumptions
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* The Binect API is accessible via HTTPS using Basic Authentication
|
|||
|
|
* API access is permitted directly from browser environments (no CORS restriction)
|
|||
|
|
* Users possess valid Binect credentials
|
|||
|
|
* Developers have access to PDFs already prepared for sending
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 5.2 Constraints
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* The product must operate **without server-side components**
|
|||
|
|
* Sensitive information must not be stored unintentionally
|
|||
|
|
* The wrapper must not obscure or reinterpret business-critical API semantics
|
|||
|
|
* The product must remain compatible with future Binect API evolution
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 6. Success Criteria
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 6.1 Qualitative Success Indicators
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Developers can complete a “send physical mail” workflow **without consulting raw API documentation**
|
|||
|
|
* First-time users can validate and preview documents before sending
|
|||
|
|
* The Explorer is usable as a **learning tool**, not just a test harness
|
|||
|
|
* API errors are understandable and actionable
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 6.2 Quantitative / Observable Indicators
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Reduction in support inquiries related to JavaScript integrations
|
|||
|
|
* Decreased integration time reported by developers
|
|||
|
|
* Reuse of the wrapper across multiple projects or partners
|
|||
|
|
* Adoption of Explorer during onboarding or demos
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 7. Non-Functional Expectations
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 7.1 Usability
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Clear mental mapping between user actions and API effects
|
|||
|
|
* Safe defaults that prevent accidental mail dispatch
|
|||
|
|
* Transparent presentation of API responses
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 7.2 Reliability
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Predictable handling of network and API errors
|
|||
|
|
* Explicit representation of document and sending states
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 7.3 Security & Trust
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Credentials handled with care and minimal persistence
|
|||
|
|
* No hidden data transmission or telemetry
|
|||
|
|
* Clear user control over destructive actions (send, cancel, delete)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 7.4 Maintainability
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Product intent remains stable even as API details evolve
|
|||
|
|
* Wrapper serves as a single adaptation layer for API changes
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 8. Dependencies and External Interfaces
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 8.1 External Dependencies
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Binect REST API
|
|||
|
|
* Browser and JavaScript runtime capabilities (fetch, crypto, storage)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
### 8.2 Downstream Artifacts
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This PRD intentionally precedes and informs:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Functional Requirements Specification (FRS)
|
|||
|
|
* Technical Design Documents (TDD)
|
|||
|
|
* Architecture Decision Records (ADR)
|
|||
|
|
* SDK and Explorer implementation plans
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 9. Risks and Mitigations
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| Risk | Impact | Mitigation |
|
|||
|
|
| ------------------------ | -------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- |
|
|||
|
|
| API behavior changes | Integration breakage | Wrapper as adaptation layer |
|
|||
|
|
| Over-abstracting API | Loss of control | Keep wrapper thin and transparent |
|
|||
|
|
| Accidental mail dispatch | User trust erosion | Explicit confirmations and preview-first workflows |
|
|||
|
|
| Scope creep | Delayed delivery | Strong adherence to PRD boundaries |
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 10. PRD Variant Classification
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This document represents a **Hybrid / Boundary PRD**:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Sufficiently precise to anchor engineering decisions
|
|||
|
|
* Flexible enough to accommodate iterative refinement
|
|||
|
|
* Explicitly positioned between product intent and implementation design
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
## 11. Traceability Note
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This PRD acts as the **intent anchor** for all downstream decisions.
|
|||
|
|
Any architectural or technical decision should be explainable as a consequence of:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> “Enabling safe, intuitive JavaScript access to the Binect API for document-based physical mail workflows.”
|
|||
|
|
|