Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

18523RE: [XP] Re: Architecture for XP and scalable web sites

Expand Messages
  • Glen B. Alleman
    Jan 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Flexibility versus planning?

      Here's some questions that may help clarify the situation:

      >>What is the context of the problem here?
      >>Where are the boundaries of your recommendation here?
      >>Where in the overall scheme of things does this system fit? Is it mission
      critical (realtime shop floor control) or is it informational to a
      non-critical set of users? That is a big range of "domain."

      The problem described by the original poster was a bit vague I agree. The
      manufacturing domain problems of "scalability estimates" are common,
      serious, and at the same time unknown without a lot of leg work. In a large
      manufacturing systems, "massive customization" is supported by a
      "configurator" based BOM system. See http://www.configsc.com/logia2.htm as
      an example of such a system. This is not the best, there are others (I2
      being a better one). This process can whipsaw the transaction rates by 2 to
      3 orders of magnitude when a simple "build to order" configuration is
      changed by marketing in an attempt to reposition a product line. The sizing
      impacts on this type of plant or shop floor system are a challenge for the
      experts, let along someone just getting started in the development of a
      plant data management system.

      This fellow needs to perform some analysis to determine the boundaries of
      the problem before embarking on ANY development method. He needs to get a
      strategy of how to scale the system "if and when" scaling is needed. If it
      is not needed, fine, but if it is then the system must be capable of
      performing this scaling without disruption to the ongoing business.

      If it is an on going business, then there are some CRUD stats somewhere,
      even if they have to be gathered by hand. Those then are used to "size" the
      solutions and determine the underlying technology needs. This is really
      simple IT Strategy stuff. There is definitely missing information in this
      case, which will most likely cause problems down stream. He's in no position
      to pick any technology without first understanding the processes and the
      data that they touch.

      Glen B Alleman
      Niwot Ridge Consulting

      "Every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes"

      >-----Original Message-----
      >From: Ron Jeffries [mailto:ronjeffries@...]
      >Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 8:28 PM
      >To: extremeprogramming@egroups.com
      >Subject: Re: [XP] Re: Architecture for XP and scalable web sites
      >At 02:55 AM 1/2/2001 +0000, it seemed like Keith Richardson wrote:
      >>The worst that can happen if the most
      >>scalable technology is selected is the project takes longer to
      >>implement and the deployment costs are slightly higher. The worst
      >>that can happen if we go for lightweight solutions is that we find
      >>the system is unusable when it eventually gets deployed. That would
      >>be bad!
      >With all due respect, I believe the above to be almost exactly incorrect.
      >The worst that can happen if a big technology is chosen is that you get to
      >market late, lose market share, and don't learn what people really want
      >until it is too late. The worst that can happen if you go for lightweight
      >solutions is that you have to beef it up upon deployment. But you
      >find that
      >out about a week after you start.
      >Flexibility is better than planning, every time.
      >Ronald E Jeffries
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic