Comments on: Beyond top-down design

By: qosapq

qosapq — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:50:53 +0000

cYs3tY hepofcbbzhnd, [url=http://hkvzevxejfsk.com/]hkvzevxejfsk[/url], [link=http://lycxbsqilvlu.com/]lycxbsqilvlu[/link], http://otwngdrfijkx.com/

By: bogardj

bogardj — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:08:15 +0000

@Derick

Yeah, I think the answer to this question is that I need to consider an architecture and OO beyond procedural, “this depends on that”.

To get going, I’m reading Object Thinking and Object Design. It might just be that I need to get better at OO.

By: derick.bailey

derick.bailey — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:50:29 +0000

@Jimmy,

I got halfway through a rather long blog post trying to illustrate why I thought my sample app architecture might help you out, and I just now realized that I’m only illustrating the exact problem that you’re describing… so scratch that last comment. I’m not sure it will help at all.

By: derick.bailey

derick.bailey — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:50:18 +0000

@Jimmy,

I may just be tooting my own horn, here, but I think my ‘Decoupling Workflow’ presentation and sample app architecture may help.

the massive levels of nesting and double-digit dependency lists, to ensure that all of the dependencies get down to the lowest levels, is one of the things that I’m trying to address in my presentation and sample code.

By: Jon Kruger

Jon Kruger — Sat, 23 May 2009 12:21:56 +0000

I feel like SRP is one of those things where you need to do what makes sense. If you followed SRP to the hilt, you would have lots of classes that had just one public method in it, but you wouldn’t do that in most cases because it would be overkill.

With SRP, I mainly try and make sure that I don’t have huge “manager” classes that do tons of stuff. Usually when you have those kinds of classes, at some point it gets painful and I realize that I need to split things up, so then I go do it. But I don’t feel like I am consciously trying to make sure that I follow SRP 100% of the time because when I do that I end up overdoing it.

By: bogardj

bogardj — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:20:12 +0000

@Rasmus

I’m starting to do that as well – to look towards other applications in a similar space, built by smart people to understand what other architectural ideas are out there.

@Nick

I agree. The tough part is to understand and detect when outliers become a pattern unto themselves, and to form a concept around them.

By: Bill Christie

Bill Christie — Thu, 21 May 2009 00:50:00 +0000

I’ve had those very same feelings. Once the complexity of the application reaches a certain point the cohesion seems to disappear in a way that makes it very difficult relate different parts. My gut has lead me to begin investigating the concept of the metaphor that Extreme Programming talks about. http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/whatisxp.htm#metaphor

It seems that the problem comes from being too concrete in class naming and NameSpace organization.

By: Nick Gieschen

Nick Gieschen — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:58:38 +0000

I love the architecture Ayende is suggesting, but it seems dangerously close to BDUF. If your client tells you to implement one feature for which you don’t have a concept, do you go design a concept for it? I’d have to call YAGNI on that.

By: Rasmus Kromann-Larsen

Rasmus Kromann-Larsen — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:57:29 +0000

I know the exact feeling.

Actually, what I’ve found is that I really like SRP / DIP way of building apps, but have run into the same complexity that you mention. My inspiration on the point is actually some more framework-kind things, hooking into the rest of the app in a clean and compositional way. I have a few examples from my current project – but actually looking at the FuBuMVC code (and more specifically AltOxite) last week, the whole pipeline idea makes me feel sort of the same way.

In fact, if we are going into DDD, I think application-centric frameworks as generic subdomains are somewhat in the right direction… Maybe spiffed up with some IOC

Hope it helps a bit – my random thoughts.