Re: [xmlWiki-developers] coding issues

[CS327 TA <cs3...@cs...>]

> The program doesn't necesarily emege by refactoring alone but by
> refactoring an initial design. This is where a small CRC session fits in
> not only at the group level but at the pair level. Refactoring doesn't
> address design, what it addresses is makiing existing code better and by
> merciless refactoring the code then the design a.k.a the stucture of the
> program is refined. But by the point you get to coding the design as
> "emerged" through the various planning games that the developers have
> particapated in.

Just thought I might cut in here...

Actually, I have seen people like Ron Jeffries argue very strongly that
the "architecture" emerges through refactoring *alone*. Certain people in
the XP camp have come out very strongly against any sort of up-front
design (not sure if I agree with this), especially involving the use of
patterns (which is more sensible, IMO). One can see another example in the
ObjectMentor "Bowling example" we have linked to off the course wiki -
there is no CRC involved there - the design emerges through writing those
tests, and the discussion that happens while the developers are sitting
down coding, not before.

Of course, these are all well and good for small toy examples like Bowling
Scores... and in your case it may be more appropriate to do some design up
front, especially since your team requires more synchronization and can't
just ask strike up a group-wide design discussion at any one time. So, I
would say Hugo's view is perhaps pragmatic, but not necessarily the party
line.

Be sure to write up issues like this, the pros/cons of each option,
why you did what you did, how it worked out for you, etc. for the
end-of-semester write-up.

 - Andrew.