Related
I am part of a studentproject and we are to develop a product for a company using Java EE. As "lead architect" in the project I am responsible for composing a good design which should be flexible for further extensions.
Background info: We are to develop a website with a drag and drop GUI with possibilites to connect data sources with data manipulations to perform on that specific data. The GUI should be generic and possible to integrate with upcoming products. This means that we cannot code to an implementation in the presentation layer. Instead we will use an interface to define what kind of data manipulations that are possible for all kinds of products. However, each product might also sport product specific data manipulations (thus extending the interface with more methods).
The problem I have with the scenario above is that I dont see how we could pass on these "product specific data manipulations" to the GUI and say that, in addition to the generic interface, we also possess these data manipulation actions...
Now I had a discussion with some of the more experienced programmers from the company and they told me that there is a common solution to this problem - more specifically known as the "Observer pattern". They draw something like [1] on the whiteboard and explained that it would be possible to "register" to a third party (getApplicationContext) that in turn could convey our product specific interface. This is a common problem to get rid of those nasty circular dependencies, they explained.
I have now had a look on the observer pattern and how it works and I still dont really get how I am supposed to solve the design problem. Could someone possibly try to explain how it would turn out in my specific scenario? I have no real problem understanding how it works with "subjects" and "observers".
Here is an UML diagram of the design where we are using a reference of the specific product. This is what is undesirable and something we would like to get around.
(maybe I got this all wrong...)
I am sorry but I cant change the picture to the correct one as I am a new user... Here is a link to an updated UML diagram:
It seems what you are looking for is the Model View Controller design pattern. The Observer pattern is just a part of this design pattern. There is a short description for doing this with Java Servlets and JavaServer Pages from Java EE on the wikipedia article.
We have over 100 applications in my company and we are trying to come up with a dashboard to show which applications use continuous integration and unit testing and other best practices.
I was going to put together my own database and a small website to start tracking this but first wanted to ask if there are any products on the market that allow you to track this.
Hmm, I will just throw this :)
We have smth similar on our company, we use inside wiki for that, there are list of our software and each responsible developer can comment it, is it using Unit Testing, little documentation attached, maybe an screenshoot, class diagram, a bit of design review. You can customize it as you want. No difference where it will be, on wiki, database, whiteboard, spreadsheet, the most important think is that ppl will have possiblity to edit that, and they will use it.
I really think a custom database with a pretty front-end is your best bet. Hell, a spreadsheet would even do the trick.
Whiteboard.
$41.29 on Amazon
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Human factors design (meeting psychological needs in UI design)
What should a developer know about user interface design, usability and less technical aspects of human computer interaction?
What knowledge of usage scenarios, user behavior patterns and the psychology of user to computer interaction should we embrace to design effective software that helps users solve their problems in a natural and uncomplicated way without building barriers and creating obstacles?
There is much more to design of software than building the architecture, implementing the requirements and creating a nice-looking interface. A beautiful interface may not necessarily be useful and effective, and vice versa, an ugly software utility can become a favorite tool for many users. What at least basic knowledge should a decent developer or designer have to smooth the user experience?
Please focus on one issue per answer, describe a problem, bring examples, how the user experience is impaired and what are the ways to address the situation.
I will start:
PROBLEM: Interfaces with lots of controls and options immediately on one screen can be overwhelming to users. They will have to waste time looking through all of them trying to locate the one option they need. They'll also get distracted in the process, see one more feature, go there to learn about it and maybe read help to see if it can solve their problems, then another one and so on until they are completely lost.
EXAMPLE: As a good example I will cite the Microsoft Word (as well as other Office applications) of pre-2007 version. The sheer amount of menus and options has always scared me. I managed to remember where were the options I needed most often but that's it. Everything extra, I tend to google for things I need to learn where this particular feature is located in the forest of options.
SOLUTION: Hide out all extra options behind a few menus and submenus logically structured for the user to be able to locate them through the process of logical thinking. The 2007 redesign has obviously taken the problem into account by grouping the options into tabs. I found many new options I needed without googling but just by thinking where it could belong and looking there. Not that it has always worked, but the improvement can be felt.
Now, what are your ideas?
Useful and effective interfaces are beautiful. Look at them as a UI designer, not as an art major. :-)
Simplicity; as few choices as can accomplish the needs.
Convention; follow patterns the users are already familiar with.
Observation; watch the users, and smooth the places they have problems.
Gentleness; write human-readable errors. Don't upset the users.
Consistency; do things the same way everywhere in the application. Have one person write all of your text, or write a standard that text must meet.
Learn to listen.
Users will tell what they want but not in the words that you're used to. Socialize, sit down, take your time and listen. Watch them work, ask questions. Bring up some ideas "How would you like...?" and listen to the replies. Don't assume that something would be better for them, ask them. Don't force them down a certain path because it's more simple to code.
Interfaces with lots of controls and
options immediately on one screen can
be overwhelming to users.
GMail has this slogan "Search, don't sort". The same principle can be applied to user interfaces. As you mentioned, users are already doing this themselves by googling for features.
Now the next step is to build support for feature search right into the application. Hit a keyboard shortcut, type a few keywords, and click on the feature you want to use. The IDE Insight feature in the upcoming RAD Studio 2010 does exactly that.
Problem: user interfaces often don't have a 1-to-1 correspondence to the domain model:
There are communication problems
because programmers talk about the
hidden domain model while users talk
about the GUI.
There are maintenance problems
because users are constrained by the
task-based user interface. They regularly need
to ask for "a new screen to do this" even
if the domain model may already
support it.
Solution: the naked objects architectural design pattern. To take this to the extreme you might even generate the GUI automatically from the domain model.
I know the question is a bit old, but I'm surprised to see that no one mentioned Joel Spolsky's excellent article : User Interface Design For Programmers. It's definitely something every developer should read. There are no especially brilliant or original ideas in it, it's mostly common sense, but it did open my eyes on some not so obvious points...
I suggest reading "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman.
I use to think asthetics were useless until I tried to sell my house. Sturdy foundation, 3 brms, 2 baths, 2 car garage, fenced yard, blah, blah blah - until I got rid of the stink from my 3 dogs nobody would touch it.
The more visually pleasing the app/site is, the more chance it will get used. Now a user will give it a try and determine if it does anything they want. Finally, how usable is it? This is a point when you will probably get more feedback.
Just like the house: get rid of the clutter, clean everything, start with a general color pallette and let the user add the crazy colors if the want them.
If you really want your eyes opened, take a course in Human Factors Engineering.
I have worked at a pharmaceutical company for the past two years and I think that the design of the interface is nearly as important as the functionality. Watching users struggle with old complicated legacy code is the primary reason for re-designing it. Functionality is seldom the primary reason for redeveloping code or replacing it.
Usability studies
Watching people use your code
Extreme programming (Delivering preview code intermittently throughout design process)
Are all essential to delivering code that not only meets the users needs but makes them happy and productive. At the end of the day, programs will only be used if they make you happy and productive.
As a second interview I get people to sit down and write code...I try to make the problem really technology independent.
My programming problems that I have don't really exercise peoples OO abilities. I tend to try and keep the coding problem solvable within 2 hours ish. So, I've struggled to find a problem small enough and involved enough that it exposes peoples OO design skills.
Any suggestions?
This is a problem that I use with some trainings, looks simple but is tricky OOP-wise:
Create model classes that will properly represent the following constructs:
Define a Shape object, where the object is any two dimensional figure, and has the following characteristics: a name, a perimeter, and a surface area.
Define a Circle, retaining and accurately outputting the values of the aforementioned characteristics of a Shape.
Define a Triangle. This time, the name of the triangle should take into account if it is equilateral (all 3 sides are the same length), isoceles (only 2 sides are the same length), or scalene (no 2 sides are the same).
You can go on and on with quadrelaterals (which include squares, rectangles, rhombi, etc) and other polygons.
The way that they would solve the above problems would reveal the people who understand OOP apart from those who don't.
ideally, you want to present a problem that appears difficult, but has a simple, elegant, obvious solution if you think in OO terms
perhaps:
we need to control access to a customer web site
each customer may have one or more people to access the site
different people from different customers may be able to view different parts of the site
the same person may work for more than one customer
customers want to manage permissions based on the person, department, team, or project
design a solution for this using object-oriented techniques
one OO solution is to have a Person, a Customer, an Account, and AccountPermissions, where the Account specifies a Person and a Customer and an optional Parent Account. the use of a recursive Account object collapses the otherwise cumbersome person/team/department/project structure a direct ERD solution might yield
I have used the FizzBuzz Programming Test. And shockingly can corroborate the claims made by the article. As a second follow up I have asked candidates to compute the angle(s) between the hands on an analog clock. We set up a laptop with VS 2008 installed and the stub in place. all they have to do is fill in the implementation.
I am always stunned at how poorly candidates do on these two questions. I really am.
Designing Social Security Application is something which I ask a lot of people during interviews.
The nice thing about this is everyone is aware of how it works and what things to keep track of.
They also have to justify their design and this really helps me get inside their head :)
(As there is lots of flexibility here)
Kind regards,
Whether or not people do some coding in the interview, I make it a point to ask this:
Tell me about a problem you solved recently using object oriented programming. You'd be surprised how often people cannot answer that simple question. A lot of times I get a blank stare, or they say something like "what do you mean? I program in .NET, which is all object oriented."
These aren't specifically OO Questions, but check out the other questions tagged interview-questions
Edit: What about implementing some design patterns? I don't have the best knowledge in the area but it seems as if you would be getting two questions for the price of one. You can test for both OO and Design pattens in the one question.
How about some sort of simple GUI. It's got inheritance, overriding, possibly events. If you mean for them to actually implement as part of the test then you could hand them a blank windows-form with an OnPaint() and tell them to get to it.
You could do worse than ask them to design a MapReduce library with a single-process implementation. Will the interface still work for a distributed implementation? What's the exception-handling policy? Should there be special support for chaining MapReduce jobs in a pipeline? What's the interface to the inputs and outputs? How are inputs chunked up? Can different inputs in one job go to different mappers? What defaults are reasonable?
A good solution in Python takes about a page of code.
I've got a super simple set. The idea is mainly to use them to filter out people who really don't know their stuff rather than filtering in the rock stars.
These are all 5 minute white-board type questions, so they are really not that hard. But the act of writing up code, and talking through it reveals a lot about a candidate - and is brilliant for exposing those that can otherwise BS through the talk.
Write a method that takes a radius of a circle as an argument, and returns the area of the circle (You would be amazed how many people struggle on this one!)
Write a program that accepts a series of numbers as arguments from the command line. Add them up, and print the sum
Write a class that acts as a keyed counter (basically a map that keeps track of how many times each key is "counted")
Everyone I work with is obsessed with the data-centric approach to enterprise development and hates the idea of using custom collections/objects. What is the best way to convince them otherwise?
Do it by example and tread lightly. Anything stronger will just alienate you from the rest of the team.
Remember to consider the possibility that they're onto something you've missed. Being part of a team means taking turns learning & teaching.
No single person has all the answers.
If you are working on legacy code (e.g., apps ported from .NET 1.x to 2.0 or 3.5) then it would be a bad idea to depart from datasets. Why change something that already works?
If you are, however, creating a new apps, there a few things that you can cite:
Appeal to experiencing pain in maintaining apps that stick with DataSets
Cite performance benefits for your new approach
Bait them with a good middle-ground. Move to .NET 3.5, and promote LINQ to SQL, for instance: while still sticking to data-driven architecture, is a huge, huge departure to string-indexed data sets, and enforces... voila! Custom collections -- in a manner that is hidden from them.
What is important is that whatever approach you use you remain consistent, and you are completely honest with the pros and cons of your approaches.
If all else fails (e.g., you have a development team that utterly refuses to budge from old practices and is skeptical of learning new things), this is a very, very clear sign that you've outgrown your team it's time to leave your company!
Remember to consider the possibility that they're onto something you've missed. Being part of a team means taking turns learning & teaching.
Seconded. The whole idea that "enterprise development" is somehow distinct from (and usually the implication is 'more important than') normal development really irks me.
If there really is a benefit for using some technology, then you'll need to come up with a considered list of all the pros and cons that would occur if you switched.
Present this list to your co workers along with explanations and examples for each one.
You have to be realistic when creating this list. You can't just say "Saves us lots of time!!! WIN!!" without addressing the fact that sometimes it is going to take MORE time, will require X months to come up to speed on the new tech, etc. You have to show concrete examples where it will save time, and exactly how.
Likewise you can't just skirt over the cons as if they don't matter, your co-workers will call you on it.
If you don't do these things, or come across as just pushing what you personally like, nobody is going to take you seriously, and you'll just get a reputation for being the guy who's full of enthusiasm and energy but has no idea about anything.
BTW. Look out for this particular con. It will trump everything, unless you have a lot of strong cases for all your other stuff:
Requires 12+ months work porting our existing code. You lose.
Of course, "it depends" on the situation. Sometimes DataSets or DataTables are more suited, like if it really is pretty light business logic, flat hierarchy of entities/records, or featuring some versioning capabilities.
Custom object collections shine when you want to implement a deep hierarchy/graph of objects that cannot be efficiently represented in flat 2D tables. What you can demonstrate is a large graph of objects and getting certain events to propagate down the correct branches without invoking inappropriate objects in other branches. That way it is not necessary to loop or Select through each and every DataTable just to get the child records.
For example, in a project I got involved in two and half years ago, there was a UI module that is supposed to display questions and answer controls in a single WinForms DataGrid (to be more specific, it was Infragistics' UltraGrid). Some more tricky requirements
The answer control for a question can be anything - text box, check box options, radio button options, drop-down lists, or even to pop up a custom dialog box that may pull more data from a web service.
Depending on what the user answered, it can trigger more sub-questions to appear directly under the parent question. If a different answer is given later, it should expose another set of sub-questions (if any) related to that answer.
The original implementation was written entirely in DataSets, DataTables, and arrays. The amount of looping through the hundreds of rows for multiple tables was purely mind-bending. It did not help the programmer came from a C++ background attempting to ref everything (hello, objects living in the heap use reference variables, like pointers!). Nobody, not even the originally programmer, could explain why the code is doing what it does. I came into the scene more than six months after this, and it was stil flooded with bugs. No wonder the 2nd-generation developer I took over from decided to quit.
Two months of tying to fix the chaotic mess, I took it upon myself to redesign the entire module into an object-oriented graph to solve this problem. yeap, complete with abstract classes (to render different answer control on a grid cell depending on question type), delegates and eventing. The end result was a 2D dataGrid binded to a deep hierarchy of questions, naturally sorted according to the parent-child arrangement. When a parent question's answer changed, it would raise an event to the children questions and they would automatically show/hide their rows in the grid according to the parent's answer. Only question objects down that path were affected. The UI responsiveness of this solution compared to the old method was by orders of magnitude.
Ironically, I wanted to post a question that was the exact opposite of this. Most of the programmers I've worked with have gone with the custom data objects/collections approach. It breaks my heart to watch someone with their SQL Server table definition open on one monitor, slowly typing up a matching row-wrapper class in Visual Studio in another monitor (complete with private properties and getters-setters for each column). It's especially painful if they're also prone to creating 60-column tables. I know there are ORM systems that can build these classes automagically, but I've seen the manual approach used much more frequently.
Engineering choices always involve trade-offs between the pros and cons of the available options. The DataSet-centric approach has its advantages (db-table-like in-memory representation of actual db data, classes written by people who know what they're doing, familiar to large pool of developers etc.), as do custom data objects (compile-type checking, users don't need to learn SQL etc.). If everyone else at your company is going the DataSet route, it's at least technically possible that DataSets are the best choice for what they're doing.
Datasets/tables aren't so bad are they?
Best advise I can give is to use it as much as you can in your own code, and hopefully through peer reviews and bugfixes, the other developers will see how code becomes more readable. (make sure to push the point when these occurrences happen).
Ultimately if the code works, then the rest is semantics is my view.
I guess you can trying selling the idea of O/R mapping and mapper tools. The benefit of treating rows as objects is pretty powerful.
I think you should focus on the performance. If you can create an application that shows the performance difference when using DataSets vs Custom Entities. Also, try to show them Domain Driven Design principles and how it fits with entity frameworks.
Don't make it a religion or faith discussion. Those are hard to win (and is not what you want anyway)
Don't frame it the way you just did in your question. The issue is not getting anyone to agree that this way or that way is the general way they should work. You should talk about how each one needs to think in order to make the right choice at any given time. give an example for when to use dataSet, and when not to.
I had developers using dataTables to store data they fetched from the database and then have business logic code using that dataTable... And I showed them how I reduced the time to load a page from taking 7 seconds of 100% CPU (on the web server) to not being able to see the CPU line move at all.. by changing the memory object from dataTable to Hash table.
So take an example or case that you thing is better implemented differently, and win that battle. Don't fight the a high level war...
If Interoperability is/will be a concern down the line, DataSet is definitely not the right direction to go in. You CAN expose DataSets/DataTables over a service but whether you SHOULD or is debatable. If you are talking .NET->.NET you're probably Ok, otherwise you are going to have a very unhappy client developer from the other side of the fence consuming your service
You can't convince them otherwise. Pick a smaller challenge or move to a different organization. If your manager respects you see if you can do a project in the domain-driven style as a sort of technology trial.
If you can profile, just Do it and profile. Datasets are heavier then a simple Collection<T>
DataReaders are faster then using Adapters...
Changing behavior in an objects is much easier than massaging a dataset
Anyway: Just Do It, ask for forgiveness not permission.
Most programmers don't like to stray out of their comfort zones (note that the intersection of the 'most programmers' set and the 'Stack Overflow' set is the probably the empty set). "If it worked before (or even just worked) then keep on doing it". The project I'm currently on required a lot of argument to get the older programmers to use XML/schemas/data sets instead of just CSV files (the previous version of the software used CSV's). It's not perfect, the schemas aren't robust enough at validating the data. But it's a step in the right direction. The code I develop uses OO abstractions on the data sets rather than passing data set objects around. Generally, it's best to teach by example, one small step at a time.
There is already some very good advice here but you'll still have a job to convince your colleagues if all you have to back you up is a few supportive comments on stackoverflow.
And, if they are as sceptical as they sound, you are going to need more ammo.
First, get a copy of Martin Fowler's "Patterns of Enterprise Architecture" which contains a detailed analysis of a variety of data access techniques.
Read it.
Then force them all to read it.
Job done.
data-centric means less code-complexity.
custom objects means potentially hundreds of additional objects to organize, maintain, and generally live with. It's also going to be a bit faster.
I think it's really a code-complexity vs performance question, which can be answered by the needs of your app.
Start small. Is there a utility app you can use to illustrate your point?
For instance, at a place where I worked, the main application had a complicated build process, involving changing config files, installing a service, etc.
So I wrote an app to automate the build process. It had a rudimentary WinForms UI. But since we were moving towards WPF, I changed it to a WPF UI, while keeping the WinForms UI as well, thanks to Model-View-Presenter. For those who weren't familiar with Model-View-Presenter, it was an easily-comprehensible example they could refer to.
Similarly, find something small where you can show them what a non-DataSet app would look like without having to make a major development investment.