Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #10552

Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies

Show all headers | View raw

On 11-12-05 11:50 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/3/2011 1:52 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
[ SNIP ]

>> Fact is, and this has been my experience, diagrams serve a purpose up
>> until product release. After that the code, with code comments, is the
>> authoritative (and only reliable) source of information.
> 
> The code is obviously the authoritative source for what the
> code does.
> 
> And the details in the code will certainly change and the
> docs may end up not being kept uptodate.
> 
> But the more high level design changes less frequently and
> even with some changes understanding how the app was
> envisioned when it was created can be very useful.
> 
> Arne

On that note, the documentation that I most like to see, well after the
fact, is requirements (business and technical). Well-written test plans
and test cases, at the functional and higher levels, are also in this
ballpark.

Actually, the documentation that I really most like to see - the Holy
Grail - is business rules prepared by competent BAs. Pretty much the
input for the business requirements. But that's so rare that I am
leaving it out of the discussion after.

If called in to do new work - and significant maintenance work is also
more new work than anything else - I prefer requirements (technical
requirements that accurately and provably trace to business
requirements) first, existing code (with code comments) second, design
docs last.

My thinking along these lines is that signed-off requirements trump
everything else. You can take 'em to the bank. If a preceding team
botched the design and implementation it doesn't matter, the
requirements tell you where you want to be regardless.

If you do *not* have requirements, then existing code is next best,
because it is the "as-is", and it - rather than the design - defines the
requirements. Business will have come to think of the way that the
current system behaves as the requirements in any case, because they've
got nothing else. I've seen this a myriad of times.

Design docs are helpful usually only when they accompany good
requirements docs, accurately trace back to the requirements, *and* the
codebase is a faithful implementation of them. Otherwise they are fairly
useless. And even in the best circumstances they are not that helpful,
in my experience: a few nuggets here and there maybe, but 90 percent
bumf and handwaving.

AHS

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Standard Design and Development Methodologies Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-11-19 19:42 +0000
  Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-19 21:22 -0500
    Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-11-20 16:55 +0000
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies "Charles Hottel" <chottel@earthlink.net> - 2011-11-20 22:20 -0500
  Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-19 23:01 -0400
    Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 20:13 -0800
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 20:16 -0800
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies "Derek K. Wodenhouse" <dkw@none.of.your.biz> - 2011-11-19 23:49 -0500
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 23:45 -0800
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies "Derek K. Wodenhouse" <dkw@none.of.your.biz> - 2011-11-20 03:49 -0500
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-20 13:58 +0100
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 08:32 -0800
              Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies "Derek K. Wodenhouse" <dkw@none.of.your.biz> - 2011-11-20 18:24 -0500
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-11-20 03:27 -0800
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies spk <jhic@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-20 09:54 -0400
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 08:33 -0800
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies thoolen <th00len@th0lenbot.thorium> - 2011-11-20 18:30 -0500
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-20 09:35 -0400
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-11-20 17:18 +0000
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 10:30 -0800
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-21 07:23 -0400
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-25 21:51 -0500
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-25 20:07 -0800
    Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-11-20 17:08 +0000
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-20 12:18 -0500
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-20 10:29 -0800
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 10:55 -0800
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-20 14:07 -0500
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 11:50 -0800
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-21 07:19 -0400
  Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-20 22:27 -0800
    Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-21 07:02 -0400
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-22 18:52 +0100
        Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-22 11:37 -0800
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-22 14:27 -0800
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-25 22:06 -0500
              Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-26 21:16 -0800
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-02 21:53 -0500
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-04 21:25 -0800
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-05 22:41 -0500
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-12-05 19:58 -0800
          Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-22 19:57 -0400
            Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-25 22:04 -0500
              Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-11-26 21:18 -0800
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-27 08:34 -0400
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-11-27 08:39 -0800
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-11-27 20:07 +0000
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-02 21:48 -0500
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-03 14:52 -0400
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-05 22:50 -0500
                Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-06 07:21 -0400
      Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-25 21:54 -0500
    Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-25 21:47 -0500

csiph-web