Re: Declarative constraints in practical terms
Date: 24 Feb 2006 13:43:01 -0800
Message-ID: <1140817381.479704.190370_at_e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Frank Hamersley wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > Frank Hamersley wrote:
> >>dawn wrote:
> >>>Brian Selzer wrote:
<snip>
> >>and early delivery in acts of construction
> >
> > this is true of "foundation" but not necessary of "database." In many
> > cases, I favor developing a UI to the 80% mark prior to designing the
> > database if circumstances permit.
>
> Yep, you have expounded on this as an approach before. I note your
> caveat for the first time (I may have missed it before). So where or
> how do you draw the line in respect of the circumstances for a green
> field project? BTW I would design and document the UI so far as I could
> get across all the business requirements, but not develop, even 10% of
> the UI before finalising the design of the database or any other layers.
> > If the database already exists for
> > much of an application, then work with that and hold off the changes
> > until you have your UI.
>
> Why cripple the developers by forcing them to develop without the
> back-end in place.
> Why not just do the tasks together in a
> collaborative and rational way?
> >>you
> >>seem to think it might be considered more important than the other parts
> >>in particular your beloved 2VL/MV coding space, and thus must be
> >>resisted by true believers at every turn.
> >
> > I am not tracking with you on this. What is being resisted?
>
> Any possibility that firstly your discarding of the RM, or secondly the
> "bang for buck" that you attach much import to, are unsustainable for
> reasons you did not contemplate in your past decision making.
If I understand the question (still having trouble, sorry), then Yes, there is that possibility.
> >> This is not so, or needed
> >>respectively. Foundations are not _more_ important, just important.
> >
> > Sure, they are foundational.
> >
> >>Going on with the building metaphor, what you fail to consider is that
> >>you don't live in the foundations - you live in the house - which has
> >>foundations, walls and roof - each with their own role to play, each
> >>dependent on the other, any of which if poorly constructed make the
> >>house unlivable.
> >
> > I'm sorry that the metaphor of the database as a foundation doesn't
> > resonate with me.
>
> No need to be sorry - it's your loss. :-)
laughing
> > I can see that some have such a perspective and I
> > can roll with that metaphor and see if it is useful, but I can equally
> > see other aspects of a software product as foundational, a UI being one
> > possible option and the run-time engines for the software being
> > another.
>
> We are in CDT are we not?
> >>So relax, let the builder put steel in the footings and timber in the
> >>roof trusses, and move in (sic), rather than repeatedly insisting you
> >>could, if you so chose, put the steel in the roof and timber in the
> >>footings and still get a viable outcome.
> >
> > You have answered my question with this. By foundational, you are
> > suggesting it is needed before putting on the roof.
>
> It is! But it does not mean that the roof trusses can not be constructed
> elsewhere on a flat factory floor before the walls are complete. But it
> does mean that you can't apply the covering (steel, tiles, shingles,
> slates, thatch, daub - take your pick) before the foundations and walls
> are present.
> > I will restate,
> > then, that the database is not foundational. We can build software
> > with it as walls or other aspects that are completed when the whole is
> > completed. I know you can build software so that the database is used
> > as a foundation, but unlike the foundations of a house where they
> > really are the foundation, this is a matter of choice in any given
> > project.
>
> This is true of IT because electrons can be rearranged somewhat more
> easily than a concrete slab with a house built on top of it! However,
> what I challenge, is the extension of the analysis that leads to the RM
> being discarded because it is not flexible
> or can't represent your UI
> data model in a form conducive to your own eye,
this isn't related to my eye (at all, really).
> or even further because
> a tool allows you, to proceed so far down the development path that IMO
> the cart is well before the horse.
> > I suspect I'm still sounding clueless, right? --dawn
>
> Not to me at least - more like misguided.
Much better. cheers! --dawn Received on Fri Feb 24 2006 - 22:43:01 CET