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

[extremeprogramming] Re: Elves in the Night [Stupid XP Question Number 6614]

Expand Messages
  • Dave Thomas
    ... Well, most of my customers frankly aren t interested in source code, version control, logging and the like. They re things that are below the horizon for
    Message 1 of 38 , Jan 3, 2000
      "Robert C. Martin" <rmartin@...> writes:

      > Dave Thomas <Dave@...> wrote in message
      > > So I'm only allowed to add a nightly job to back up the repository
      > >only after we've had a disk crash and lost all the source?
      >
      > If your customer has not made nightly backups a priority, then they
      > must be willing to lose all the source.


      Well, most of my customers frankly aren't interested in source code,
      version control, logging and the like. They're things that are below
      the horizon for them, but vital for the process that delivers what
      they *do* want. Customers don't want to micro-manage the
      developers--nor do developers want to be micro-managed. So I don't
      think I'd even mention the fact I was taking backups to my
      clients--I'm sure they either assume I am, or they haven't thought of
      the possibility of losing the source. Either way, taking them is part
      of the service I provide--providing a low-risk path to delivering
      against their objective.

      Same with something like logging or tracing. Often, this is a facility
      that's useful to the development team, not the business users. So I'd
      normally add it without consultation.

      I suspect this is not a discussion we'll get resolved until I find an
      opportunity to be integrated into a successful XP team that'll show me
      the errors of my ways ;-)

      Regards


      Dave


      --
      Thomas Consulting.
      Innovative and successful developments with Unix, Java, C, and C++.

      Now in bookstores:
      The Pragmatic Programmer. www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ppbook/
    • Robert C. Martin
      Tom Kreitzberg wrote in message news:387364E4.C0A3E6CC@jhuapl.edu... ... There is no fundamental difference between pre XP Object
      Message 38 of 38 , Jan 5, 2000
        Tom Kreitzberg <Tom.Kreitzberg@...> wrote in message
        news:387364E4.C0A3E6CC@......

        > But I think "flexibility" means different things to XP and,
        > shall we say, pre-XP OMA. In XP, doesn't it primarily mean
        > once and only once? In pre-XP OMA, doesn't it primarily mean
        > OCP and low coupling? When I wrote that XP "is structured so
        > that inflexible designs are cheap to change," I meant inflexible
        > in this second sense.

        There is no fundamental difference between pre XP Object Mentor, and
        post XP
        Object Mentor except that we have identified XP as the process we like
        to
        use. Even this is not a big shift for us, since XP is very similar in
        spirit and practice to the unnamed process we have used for years.
        There
        are differences, certainly -- specifically in the areas of pair
        programming
        and test first programming; but these are differences in intensity, not
        in
        philosophy. As for the rules governing simplity, the planning game,
        quick
        iterations, etc, we were very closely aligned.

        Flexibility means the same to me now as it did five years ago. The
        ability
        to add or change significant amounts of functionality while changing a
        minimum of exsiting code -- i.e. the OCP. OnceAndOnlyOnce leads to this
        goal just as the OO design principles do. It is my goal over the next
        several months to integrate the principles and XP.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.