Essays development programmes hardly benefit the poor

Evolutionary approaches to software development are not only supported by leading software development processes they are in fact the norm for agile processes. You also learned that there are some significant problems with the near-serial, BDUF approaches favored by many traditional data professionals.  Most importantly you discovered that it is possible to take an evolutionary approach to data-oriented development activities, techniques that are described in greater detail in following chapters.  The bottom line is that if you want to work with an agile team you need to be prepared to work in an evolutionary manner.  It is a choice to work in this way, just as it's a choice to not do so.  Agile software developers embrace change and therefore decide to work in an evolutionary manner. 

My guess is that in the near term database TDD, or perhaps Test Driven Database Design (TDDD), won't work as smoothly as application TDD. The first challenge is tool support. Although unit-testing tools, such as DBUnit , are now available they are still an emerging technology at the time of this writing. Some DBAs are improving the quality of the testing they doing, but I haven’t yet seen anyone take a TDD approach to database development. One challenge is that  unit testing tools are still not well accepted within the data community, although that is changing, so my expectation is that over the next few years database TDD will grow. Second, the concept of evolutionary development is new to many data professionals and as a result the motivation to take a TDD approach has yet to take hold.  This issue affects the nature of the tools available to data professionals – because a serial mindset still dominates within the traditional data community most tools do not support evolutionary development.  My hope is that tool vendors will catch on to this shift in paradigm, but my expectation is that we'll need to develop open source tools instead.  Third, my experience is that most people who do data-oriented work seem to prefer a model-driven, and not a test-driven approach.  One cause of this is likely because a test-driven approach hasn't been widely considered until now, another reason might be that many data professionals are likely visual thinkers and therefore prefer a modeling-driven approach.

The system is being complete replaced . It is not uncommon to see homegrown systems for human resource functions being replaced by COTS systems such as SAP or Oracle Financials.

  • The release is no longer to be supported . Sometimes organizations will have several releases in production at the same time, and over time older releases are dropped.
  • The system no longer needed to support the current business model . A organization may explore a new business area by developing new systems only to discover that it is not cost effective.
  • The system is redundant . Organizations that grow by mergers and/or acquisitions often end up with redundant systems as they consolidate their operations.
  • The system has become obsolete .
  • In most cases, the retirement of older releases is a handled during the deployment of a newer version of the system and is a relatively simple exercise. Typically, the deployment of the new release includes steps to remove the previous release. There are times, however, when you do not retire a release simply because you deploy a newer version. This may happen if you can not require users to migrate to the new release or if you must maintain an older system for backward compatibility.

    You may optionally choose to hold model reviews and even code inspections, but as I write in Model Reviews: Best Practices or Process Smells? these quality assurance (QA) techniques really do seem to be obsolete with agile software development, at least in the small. On larger teams, or in very complex situations, reviews can add value because when they're done right they provide excellent feedback into your IT governance efforts.

    How would Agile Modeling (AM) be applied on an FDD project? The principles and practices can be clearly applied to FDD's two modeling-oriented steps - develop an overall model and design by feature. The only apparent mismatch between the two processes is FDD's practice of class ownership and AM's practice of collective ownership , but I would argue that this isn't the case. FDD's practice pertains to coding but does not to modeling, on a FDD project people work together in teams to model, along the lines of AM's model with others practice, and therefore several people will be working on your shared collection of modeling artifacts.

    Essays development programmes hardly benefit the poor

    essays development programmes hardly benefit the poor

    You may optionally choose to hold model reviews and even code inspections, but as I write in Model Reviews: Best Practices or Process Smells? these quality assurance (QA) techniques really do seem to be obsolete with agile software development, at least in the small. On larger teams, or in very complex situations, reviews can add value because when they're done right they provide excellent feedback into your IT governance efforts.

    Media:

    essays development programmes hardly benefit the pooressays development programmes hardly benefit the pooressays development programmes hardly benefit the pooressays development programmes hardly benefit the poor