[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML publishing frameworks and software methodologies

• To: Oleg Dulin <dulino@o...>
• Subject: Re: XML publishing frameworks and software methodologies
• From: Henrik Martensson <henrik.martensson@b...>
• Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 08:05:21 +0100
• Cc: XML Developer List <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <c12afn$un4$1@s...>
• References: <c12afn$un4$1@s...>

On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 13:33, Oleg Dulin wrote:

> 
> The problem with use-case driven development is that very little focus 
> is placed on the architecture of the application, forcing developers to 
> deliver functionality and resulting in unmaintainable complex code.

This is wrong. For example, RUP is use-case driven, and places a lot of
emphasis on architecture.

The fact that a methodology is use-case driven does not impair the
architecture of applications in any way. On the contrary, use-cases are
a great help in understanding what an application is supposed to do, and
thus supports the design of a good architecture. Whether you use Design
Patterns, TDD, CRC, UML, DRY, Simple Design, or some other design tools,
use-cases will be an extremely valuable help.

There is a problem that _may_ crop up with use-case driven development:
it does not emphasize testing enough. (My personal opinion, and I don't
expect anyone else to buy it right off the bat. Also, it depends on who
is doing the use-case driven development, of course.)

However, this is not the same thing as saying there is a problem with
use-cases. Use-cases are a great tool and in most cases they capture
requirements much better than traditional requirement specifications.

Personally, I am rather strongly in favour of test driven methodologies,
and i consider use-cases an essential tool in my methodology toolkit.

> 
> With Cocoon and XSL I found that most of the architecture is already 
> provided by the framework itself, meaning that you can focus on the 
> functionality. The problem of refactoring and reuse manifests itself in 
> XSLT, though, but it is not nearly as complex to refactor XSLTs as it is 
>   to maintain reusable component-based Java code.
> 
> Anyway, what do you think ? Given XML-pipeline frameworks such as 
> Cocoon, can we focus on functionality and pay little attention to the 
> architecture (assume that Cocoon does its job well), or is architecture 
> still an important part of the methodology ?

With the complexity of the applications we make today, architecture is
more important than ever. Using a framework of some sort does not reduce
the need to pay close attention to the architecture of the code we write
ourselves. Messy code written on top of a good framework will result in
a bad system

/Henrik

• References:
  • XML publishing frameworks and software methodologies
    • From: Oleg Dulin <dulino@o...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Help
• Next by Date: Re: how to best integrate XML in a programming language
• Previous by thread: Re: XML publishing frameworks and software methodologies
• Next by thread: ANN: XML Europe 2004 Programme now available, register today forearly bird rates
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread