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

Re: [XP] How to do this?

Expand Messages
  • Charlie Poole
    Hi Theresa, You can go from the top to the bottom: force a class into existence that handles the API. That class may end up as an adapter but
    Message 1 of 234 , May 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Theresa,

      You can go from the top to the bottom: force a class into existence that
      handles the API.
      That class may end up as an adapter but _you_don't_know_that_yet_ ! You'll
      discover it
      as you add the implementation.

      You can go from the bottom to the top: create CRUD methods that access the
      database
      and proceed from there. By using these methods.

      You can slice vertically rather than horizontally: Create one API method at
      a time, driving
      all the way through to the database, first with no real functionality, then
      with minimal
      functionality, then with exceptions.

      You can do some mix of the above approaches. :-)

      I would personally lean toward the top-down approach with refinement
      occuring in
      vertical slices, but don't let that influence you. The biggest factor in
      the decision is your
      own experience and level of comfort with each approach. So long as you end
      up linking
      all the pieces and driving out all the functionality, you'll be successful.

      In addition, you should explicitly look at the existing tests - assuming
      there are any - and
      make sure you have ended up with equivalent tests in your own
      implementation.

      Charlie

      On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Theresa Forster
      <theresajayne@...>wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > I have a conundrum, I have a VB.NET WCF service I need to recode and clean
      > up into C#,
      >
      > I want to drive it out using Agile using just the name of the service and
      > the existing database at the top and bottom allowing XP and Agile to drive
      > out the logic in the middle.
      >
      > The old system is using CSLA which is mind bogglingly slow. So I need to
      > use
      > something maybe NHibernate or something. I don't know as I haven't driven
      > it
      > out yet.
      >
      > My question is where should I start? What should I do as a test first? The
      > WCF declaration is fixed for the moment, but we will be adding restful to
      > the mix going forward. So should I build an adapter pattern behind the WCF
      > or maybe a Controller Pattern.
      >
      > Being new to agile I am not sure which pattern fits here nor where to go
      > forward, so some suggestions would be really helpful.
      >
      > Thanks
      >
      > Theresa
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [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.