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

Re: [XP] Getting the message across

Expand Messages
  • Pierre Boudreau
    ... I think XP is trying to do more than what it first set out to do. I had only heard about XP a few months before this year s XPU. When I got there, I
    Message 1 of 46 , Sep 1, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      > I'm aware that XP is misunderstood too. However, XP is fairly clear - 12
      > practices founded on 4 principles - otherwise it's not XP. How could this
      > be any clearer?

      I think XP is trying to do more than what it first set out to do. I had
      only heard about XP a few months before this year's XPU. When I got there,
      I realy got confused about what XP was and what it was trying to be.
      Specific issues that confused me were:

      -Discussions about distributed pair programming.
      -Discussions about XP for large teams.

      IMHO, these go outside the scope of what Kent describes in Extreme
      Programming Explained. If XP tries to make itself fit everywhere, it will
      end up being vague and suffer from the same problems as the RUP (as some
      have said, it tries to be everything and, consequently, ends up being
      nothing).

      What attacted me to XP was a disciplined, proven methodology that can be
      used for teams of 1 to 10 members without the need for tailoring the process
      like in the RUP. I was also looking for solid practices that I could
      incorporate into other processes within larger organizations to improve
      quality and customer satisfaction. I did not expect to use all of XP or
      only XP for these larger teams (above 10). After XPU and some discussions
      on this list, I see that some would like XP to be able to accomodate _all_
      these projects. There are some very convincing arguments on either side
      from some very smart and experienced people and it is not my intention to
      defend or reject these arguments. My point is that these things go outside
      of XP's intent don't they? Changing these along the way can lead to
      confusion despite Ron's best efforts to stick to the basics and to repeat
      himself a lot ;)
    • dhemeryy
      Hi Ron, ... Yes, that s the defining characteristic of acceptance tests. Operate through the same interfaces the users operate through is not a defining
      Message 46 of 46 , Sep 5, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Ron,

        > > Yes. I meant to say that my understanding of acceptance tests
        > > (which I may choose to change) is that they operate through the
        > > same interfaces the users operate through.
        >
        > That is not my understanding of acceptance tests. My understanding
        > of acceptance tests is that they are tests that provide the
        > customers with confirmation that the system probably does what they
        > asked it to do.

        Yes, that's the defining characteristic of acceptance tests. "Operate
        through the same interfaces the users operate through" is not a
        defining characteristic, but is typically true of the acceptance tests
        used on the non-XP projects I've known.

        > I've never seen an XP team that did most or all their acceptance
        > tests through the GUI. There may be some, but I've never seen one.

        Yes. It's taken me a long time to clarify the difference between what
        XP projects think of acceptance tests and how I've thought of
        acceptance tests (assuming that I understand it even now). This is
        one of the things that has been difficult for me to learn about XP.

        Dale
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.