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

[XP] Re: XP's Achilles' Heel: Collaboration

Expand Messages
  • banshee858
    I will be willing to share all I know about my XP experience off- line. Please send me an email. ... You do not strictly need a domain expert . You just
    Message 1 of 74 , Apr 30, 2002
      I will be willing to share all I know about my XP experience off-
      line. Please send me an email.

      > > > * Customer on site.
      > > I never can understand why management balks at this requirement.
      > >
      >
      > I can. It's expensive to delegate a domain expert to a project.
      >

      You do not strictly need a "domain expert". You just need someone
      who cares a lot about the project and someone who's primary
      responsibility is the project. A project manager can be a good
      person for this job as long as they are not managing too many
      seperate projects. While an on-site customer is good (I understand
      why they are on-site), maybe a better way to describe this person
      is "on call"? Remember, the onsite customer does not stop doing
      their regular work or duties so they are not too much a resource
      hit.

      >
      > > Also, you can test web applications. I did it for a year. I
      > > just wish I had my testing framework now!
      >
      > I know you can test web apps, but not everyone can. Newkirk and
      > Martin couldn't.
      >

      Personally, I think their technology and inexperience with the web
      got in the way (perhaps I am wrong?). I have been trying to
      understand the various xUnit tools out there (I'm rewriting my ASP
      test framework and creating a ASP.Net framework for C#), it seems
      many have a reliance on DLL's/complied code. That works fine for
      code that needs to be complied, but web work is not "compiled" in the
      traditional sense so I think it needs to be tested in a different
      way.

      Instead of writing your code to a DLL, they could have written their
      usual classes as includes, their test subrountines in a seperate
      include and then executed the test subroutines from the web browser
      and verified the code worked at runtime. Of course, you are only
      checking the backend code and increasing the number of includes will
      eventually slow down the web application. Also, the presentation and
      simple buisness logic must be verified through acceptance tests
      (hopefully automated).
    • Bill de hÓra
      ... Hash: SHA1 ... Point taken, but I consider a customer an expert of sorts. ... Their technology couldn t test their app. ... Ultimately, they needed a
      Message 74 of 74 , Apr 30, 2002
        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
        Hash: SHA1


        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: banshee858 [mailto:cnett858@...]

        > You do not strictly need a "domain expert". You just need
        > someone who cares a lot about the project and someone who's
        > primary
        > responsibility is the project. A project manager can be a good
        > person for this job as long as they are not managing too many
        > seperate projects. While an on-site customer is good (I
        > understand why they are on-site), maybe a better way to describe
        > this person is "on call"? Remember, the onsite customer does
        > not stop doing their regular work or duties so they are not too
        > much a resource hit.

        Point taken, but I consider a customer an expert of sorts.


        > Personally, I think their technology and inexperience with the
        > web got in the way (perhaps I am wrong?).

        Their technology couldn't test their app.


        > I have been trying to
        > understand the various xUnit tools out there (I'm rewriting my
        > ASP test framework and creating a ASP.Net framework for C#), it
        > seems many have a reliance on DLL's/complied code. That works
        > fine for code that needs to be complied, but web work is not
        > "compiled" in the traditional sense so I think it needs to be
        > tested in a different way.

        Ultimately, they needed a simulator. Cactus is close to this for
        container based apps. Perhaps eval() is the way to think about
        testing this stuff.

        Bill de hÓra

        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
        Version: PGP 7.0.4

        iQA/AwUBPM8gOeaWiFwg2CH4EQIiigCgtwM2hmM9LibE4xYrbaTVnlV8wdYAnjjf
        V3iWQo9LOSfe66JiGaq0XdOP
        =7/x/
        -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.