Re: [xmlWiki-developers] coding issues

[Hugo G. <xm...@ne...>]

In the thread titled "Subject: [XP] Exactly what IS _big_ design up front? " http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/message/37522 you can find a recent discussion about design. 


--- In extremeprogramming@y... <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/post?protectID=070082114180056192184147109024192012134152211241039019161126172205142>, drawstho@a... <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/post?protectID=114212113105099134170149203140129208071> wrote:
> So, there seem to be two schools of thought:
>   1. do enough design to get started with the first iteration, 
> knowing that you will be doing more in each iteration as you go 
> along, and
>   2. do a (relatively complete) first draft design up front, 
> knowing that it will be modified in each iteration as you go along.

Instead, let me suggest these three schools:
1. Do only enough design to be able to do the first task (or story)
2. Do enough design to be cover the first iteration
3. Do a complete (draft) design that spans multiple iterations

I would put XP in the first box, "true" RUP in the second, and both 
waterfall and RUP-as-often-practiced in the third.

I suspect that almost everyone here would agree that 3 is BDUF (Big 
Design Up Front). People (like me) who really like XP and Test-First 
Design would tend to label 2 as also being BDUF, but many other 
people would simply consider it to be DUF, or JEDUF (Just Enough).

Kevin




================

-H

cs3...@cs... wrote:

>>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.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmlWiki-developers mailing list
>xml...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlwiki-developers
>