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

[XP] Re: in-memory Repository & Object Prevalence technology

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Grigg
    ... That s perverse. Why would sensible people go through all the trouble of building a proper three tier architecture, to separate presentation, business
    Message 1 of 260 , Aug 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > --- Jeff Grigg wrote:
      >> Well, ditch the database, and just take one simple step
      >> to full blown Object Prevalence technology, possibly
      >> with Prevayler. ;->

      --- "J. B. Rainsberger" <jbrains@r...> wrote:
      > If it weren't for interoperation with other applications
      > that demand RDBMS... I just haven't had a real project
      > on which I've been allowed to try Prevayler.

      That's perverse. Why would sensible people go through all the
      trouble of building a proper three tier architecture, to separate
      presentation, business logic, and database access implementations
      from each other, and then blow it all by letting everyone else access
      the physical database schema directly? Is there no sense in the
      world? Sensible people would have applications talk to each
      other "business layer to business layer" -- service-oriented
      architectures.


      (And yes, I know all about it; it's something that I see happen *all
      the time.* ;-)



      (And, well, I haven't been allowed to try Prevayler either. )-:
    • Ilja Preuss
      ... Yes, but I thought that we were talking about a test that was wrong. Not sure wether that matters, though... Cheers, Ilja
      Message 260 of 260 , Aug 18, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Adrian Howard wrote:
        > On 17 Aug 2004, at 12:22, Ilja Preuss wrote:
        > [snip]
        >> It's certainly the case that without pairing/reviews I am more
        >> likely to
        >> *miss* tests - but I don't think that I get more *wrong* tests that
        >> cancel out with wrong implementation...
        >
        > I think it could happen over time.
        >
        > - Lack of pairing might mean I miss duplication so a bit
        > of business logic gets into foo and bar.
        >
        > - My acceptance test for the business logic only uses foo.
        >
        > - Later I change bar incorrectly, but the foo test still passes.
        >
        > False-pass for that bit of business logic.

        Yes, but I thought that we were talking about a test that was wrong. Not
        sure wether that matters, though...

        Cheers, Ilja
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.