I'm guessing that one of the business requirements is that the application
doesn't need to scale. The famous "We will clear up the performance (or
scalability) issues once we have the functionality." As one developer I
worked with said "Performance and scalability are part of the day to day job
of a developer; not something to be bolted on later." My experience has
been likewise. Everytime it was something tackled last it ended up costing
a fortune to fix. Massive design changes and rearchitecture of the system.
It is unfortunate that I have yet to see a Computer Sciences graduate that
has taken courses in performance and scalability and how it has to be
implemented from the start.
Sybrand is correct. Unless it is rare that these things run, scalability is
going to bite the big one.
Jim
--
Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
with family. Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign. You can figure
it out.
"Jeremy" <newspostings_at_hazelweb.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1954144a549aa931989736_at_news.cis.dfn.de...
> In article <1b0kevsdjnq0gl6pnpk5f5d9q5v12df2ju_at_4ax.com>,
> gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl says...
> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 16:42:00 +0100, Jeremy
> > <newspostings_at_hazelweb.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >The idea is that this allows
> > >good deal of flexibility in a certain area of the app.
> >
> >
> > No. You would end up with a fully unscalable system.
>
> No you don't.
>
> > Just forget about it, and start learning to do things *properly*
> > instead of trying to be 'smart' and end up in hell or have others end
> > up in hell.
>
> The ony people who would be able to write the 'dynamic' portion will be
> developers or implementors of the application. You are making a sweeping
> remark without knowledge of the underlying business requirement.
>
> Do you have any suggestion regarding how the original request might be
> implementable?
>
>
> --
>
> jeremy
Received on Fri Jun 13 2003 - 23:20:38 CDT
