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

RE: [XP] How to do this?

Expand Messages
  • Theresa Forster
    Well that would be nice, but the code is a nightmare, as in including several subclasses which are worse still (and all over the place with Business login in
    Message 1 of 234 , May 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Well that would be nice, but the code is a nightmare, as in including
      several subclasses which are worse still (and all over the place with
      Business login in every class)

      Any refactor would have to be total and across the board otherwise we come
      across circular dependancies between the old code and the new C# classes.



      So the plan is to rewrite it TDD/BDD using patterns and practices which were
      ignored in the original.

      At the moment we have 2 endpoints, basic + wshttp bindings with a Service
      and an APIservice the latter being the WS and the other being the local
      comms to the web app.



      This application has links to multiple apps all over the shop so the
      interface to the methods cannot change in this iteration neither can the DB
      unless it is to improve the way it works.

      The starting point for me is theoretically create an adapter pattern just
      behind the WCF contracts and have them simply call into the adapter then
      drive out the business logic based on the BDD of each call in turn, driving
      down to the repository in slices.

      I am asking, is this the right way to go or is there a better less painful
      way of performing this task - essentially I am building new code based on
      Old contract at the WCF end



      Theresa



      From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Howard
      Sent: 06 May 2012 12:41
      To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [XP] How to do this?






      On 6 May 2012, at 10:24, Theresa Forster wrote:

      > I have a conundrum, I have a VB.NET WCF service I need to recode and clean
      > up into C#,

      Have you looked at the techniques covered in "Working Effectively With
      Legacy Code" by Michael Feathers and "Behead Your Legacy Beast"
      http://mikadomethod.org? Both useful reads.

      Cheers,

      Adrian
      --
      http://quietstars.com adrianh@...
      <mailto:adrianh%40quietstars.com> twitter.com/adrianh
      t. +44 (0)7752 419080 skype adrianjohnhoward del.icio.us/adrianh





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • MarvinToll.com
      I remember anxiously anticipating some capability in COBOL 85 when working for EDS on the General Motors account... however, that is as memorable at the moment
      Message 234 of 234 , May 19, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I remember anxiously anticipating some capability in COBOL 85 when working for EDS on the General Motors account... however, that is as memorable at the moment as yesterday's breakfast.

        More to the point, I am anxiously awaiting select functional programming capabilities being introduced in Java and am happy to observe Oracle moving the platform forward... at least through 2021.

        As a side note, I've been appreciative of Oracle's handling of the challenging task so far... and am (at the moment) optimistic that both multi-core and functional capabilities being supported are sufficient for potentially all of my current customer's anticipated needs.

        _Marvin
        http://PatternEnabled.com

        --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "JeffGrigg" <jeffreytoddgrigg@...> wrote:
        >
        > And how many programmers using a COBOL 85 compiler are writing code that is much different than just COBOL 64?
        >
        > My observation has been "not many."
        >
        > (based on, admittedly, relatively few data points)
        >
        > --- "MarvinToll.com" <MarvinToll@> wrote:
        > > One. That OO COBOL was not really a maturation of the original
        > > 1959 design intent...
        > >
        > > Two. That OO COBOL was not durably embraced by the global IT
        > > community...
        > >
        > > Three. The existence of OO COBOL does not automatically
        > > constitute a "maturing" of the language. :-)
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.