Software Architecture 95
| Software Architecture: Organizational Principles and Patterns | |
| author | David M. Dikel, et al |
| pages | 250 |
| publisher | Prentice Hall PTR |
| rating | 7 |
| reviewer | Ben Shive |
| ISBN | 0130290327 |
| summary | Useful approach to organizing software projects, from people to code. |
The book opens by explaining what VRAPS (Vision, Rhythm, Anticipation, Partnering, and Simplification) is and what the book can do for the reader. Software Architecture is increasingly important, but the organizational aspect is often overlooked. Architecture and Organization do overlap, but to the executive the Architecture side is hidden, and to the practitioner the Organizational side is hidden. VRAPS attempts to shift the perspectives of the executive and practitioner to provide a more balanced view. An excellent summary of why each of the VRAPS principles are important is provided. A short example scenario follows, briefly illustrating how the model can be used and misused. These concepts are further expanded throughout the book.
The second chapter is essentially a more detailed look at VRAPS and how everything fits together. Criteria, Patterns and Antipatterns are explained, along with a short history of VRAPS. An amusing anecdote mentioned was a manager who divided his program into one hundred modules to show percent complete. Only five modules had more than 100 lines of code. One of the five had over a million lines. There are similar occurrences throughout the book that illustrate various follies in software development and management.
Chapter three deals with maintaining the vision and direction of the project while balancing all the influences. To a manager, the project may look perfectly ordered on paper while features are added and removed. On paper it still looks neat, but to the practitioner it can appear a jumbled mess. The reader also sees the first example of how the situation layouts are handled in the book. A short summary covering the Criteria, Antipatterns, and Patterns is presented. Then each criterion is further examined with its related Antipatterns and Patterns.
Further chapters proceed with introducing various development concepts that complete the VRAPS moniker. How to put the concepts into practice is explored through the same Criteria, Antipattern and Pattern layout. It does an excellent job of illustrating each part of VRAPS. Following at least some of the principles will result in a project that will be successful, instead of becoming one of the book's examples where the team ended up with nothing to show for its work.
The chapter on the Allaire (now part of Macromedia) case study was the most interesting chapter of the whole book. Company and product development is followed, including mistakes made along the way. The final chapter on 'Building and Implementing a Benchmark' was rather unimpressive. It seemed merely tacked onto the end and included no real conclusion to the entire book. However, the rest of the book is a solid piece of work with very useful information.
The anecdotes and examples throughout keep the reading from becoming too dull. Even with a flat finish to the book it contains plenty of valuable information and is worth the admission price, though it could have been better still.
Chapters
1. What You Can't See could Help You
2. The VRAPS Reference Model: How the Pieces Fit Together
3. Projecting and Unifying Vision
4. Rhythm: Assuring Beat, Process, and Movement
5. Anticipation: Predicting, Validating, and Adapting
6. Partnering: Building Cooperative Organizations
7. Simplification: Clarifying and Minimizing
8. Principles at Work: The Allaire Case Study
9. Case Study: Building and Implementing a Benchmark Using VRAPS
Appendixes
A. Quick Reference Table: Principles, Criteria, Antipatterns, and Patterns
B. Antipattern and Pattern Summaries
You can purchase Software Architecture: Organizational Principles and Patterns from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
At work... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:At work... (Score:1)
From the department of the Glaringly Obvious (Score:4, Funny)
This is the kind of astute observation that makes reading
Re:From the department of the Glaringly Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
I once took some Management courses, and roughly 80 percent of the textbook was stuff like that. There was very little real substance. I suppose to people just born (physically or mentally) it might be new, but it bored the sh8t out of me.
At least I learned why PHB's talk the way the do, and perhaps learned some good fluff-talkin' techniques for speeches, interviews, etc. I suppose that counts as "education", but I doubt it is what the author(s) intended.
Re:From the department of the Glaringly Obvious (Score:2)
I'm not making any comment on the rest of the book. As a software cfaftsman, I might be interested in actually reading it.
Re:From the department of the Glaringly Obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
I somewhat disagree. The purpose of a "motivational speaker" is to motivate, not necessarily supply new knowledge. I have been to one (paid by my employer), and the speaker was actually pretty good.
Re:From the department of the Glaringly Obvious (Score:2, Interesting)
the syllogism is also obvious, but had to be stated at one time.
software is logic. It's abstract.
"Obvious" is a synonym of "true".
It's so obvious we are a half century behind on integrating this obviousness in our software engnineering "standards".
Go to a disorganized software team. Try to formalize these "obvious" ideas to actually benefit the process, and you will experience people resisting the obvious -- which they will try to say is "because it's obvious".
The thing about going through the "obvious" is that subtle truths arrise, and some obvious things turn out to be false (obviously heavy things fall faster than lighter things... we waited hundreds of years to find Aristotle was wrong in this because the attidutes was, it's obvious, why check?)
Please, write down everything that is obvious... I want to read it.
Re:From the department of the Glaringly Obvious (Score:2)
Obvious Things
1. You take yourself way too seriously.
2. I'm being a kind of a jerk.
3. There's no way I'm goin to finish th
Re:From the department of the Glaringly Obvious (Score:1)
btw, obviously, you did finish.
And I'm still right about what it means if something is "obvious" and that we need more obvious statements about software engineering because our field is very substandard as an engineering practice, with a total inability to make reliable predictions on cost, schedule and functionality.
I just presented the CMM to the director... "isn't this obvious management technique?" he asked, "Yes," I admitted. Still, we struggle, in software, to do and justify the "obvious".
You have oversimplified the situation. It's actually so complicated even the obvious is a source of confusion. As is the fact that there are "obvious" facts in contradiction with on another.
I have analysed this a lot, not because I take myself so seriously, but because it has a direct impact on my work... which I guess I do take fairly seriously.
Re:Not quite so. (Score:1)
That depends on how you look at it. It is perfectly natural to think that he meant 'rest'. But maybe I jumped the gun a bit.
Re:Not quite so. (Score:1)
It's a go! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a go! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's a go! (Score:2, Funny)
Yield Organizational!
Which leads to YO!MTVRAPS
Yield Organizational! Multiple Thread Vision, Rhythm, Anticipation, Partnering, and Simplification
Re:It's a go! (Score:2)
(Of coruse maybe it has something to do with I am actually old enough -- aka >25 -- to remember when that show was on MTV)
Re:It's a go! (Score:1)
Had you included rude, crude, or otherwise obscene representations of VRAPS which were themselves clever and amusing -- so we could refer to it in a more meaningful and appropriate way when it broke -- then it would get rubber-stamped on through the 'process'.
Re:It's a go! (Score:5, Funny)
"Are you familiar with the CORAN 2 process?"
"Oh yeah...we use that a lot."
"Really? I use it in concert with UMX and ICBM VSLAM for maximum effect. We use Agile Extremities processes with core-duplex programming methodologies"
"Ooooh...sounds awesome!"
"Yeah, it's good stuff. You really need quad-programming to and read once write never methodologies to have quality code. As long as you use over the shoulder management with sycophant posterior gestulations it all turns out good."
manager? (Score:5, Funny)
You don't call such people managers....
you call them damagers.
Re:manager? (Score:2, Funny)
But, is this a useful book? Is it good? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But, is this a useful book? Is it good? (Score:1)
Nick
Re:But, is this a useful book? Is it good? (Score:2, Flamebait)
But, is this a useful book? Is it good?
From the Article:The anecdotes and examples throughout keep the reading from becoming too dull. Even with a flat finish to the book it contains plenty of valuable information and is worth the admission price, though it could have been better still.
So you dont read before posting.... Lemme guess you want to be a slashdot editor
Saw presentation earlier this year (Score:3, Interesting)
VRAPS (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, there's one thing worse than developing software without a methodology, and that's changing the methodology every time someone comes out with a new acronym. No-one can evaluate a method until they've done a few non-trivial projects with it, and that takes years. If all the people who jumped on the RUP bandwagon then the XP bandwagon jump on this, the industry's track record for delivering on time and within budget will only get worse.
Re:VRAPS (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:VRAPS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:VRAPS (Score:1)
Re:VRAPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus the importance of not adopting RUP, XP, etc. for real projects. These methodologies can be informative, but it is better to create a simplified custom process for each project. It isn't very hard, and the development team can establish the tool chain, conventions, and documentation methods that suits them and the project's requirements best. Note that simplifying the process is critical, because no one can seriously keep track of developing real software while trying to learn some baroque process. Also, it is always critical to avoid proprietary documentation formats (e.g., basically anything by Microsoft), trendy IDEs, acronyms of the month, and other neat but immature development toys.
Personally, I think taking the time to actually implement the dogma of RUP, XP, etc. is a waste of time, when 1) no one really understands them, anyway and 2) they are like fashion: here today, gone tomorrow, possibly reborn in 20 years, but who knows.
Better acronym: (Score:5, Funny)
Consequently, I propose the following acronym.
Criteria
Rhythm
Antipatterns
Patterns
Software is ART. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Software is ART. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it's Monday.
Re:Software is ART. (Score:1)
I wouldn't really mind the equiv of velvet Elvi or dogs playing pool.
Supporting the Arts: Funders, Managers, and Fools (Score:1)
Unfortunately, people who fund the Arts usually expect to manage the Arts
Re:Software is ART. (Score:2)
Software is Art, and one of the reasons why the industry is in such shit right now is because there's a bunch of Con Artists pretending to be programmers out there.
Re:Software is ART. (Score:2, Insightful)
I just left a software company that mostly used C++, and there were several guys there that had the "I don't need to learn anything new because I can already do it in obfuscated C/C++" mentality. Getting some of them to look at newer languages, tools, methodologies, etc., was like pulling teeth.
It's not that they only wanted to code in C/C++, it's that they habitually coded *badly* in C/C++. IMHO, that's where a lot of the crap code comes from - people that have no interest in ongoing learning.
Anti-pattern Rant (Score:5, Interesting)
My former collegue taught me one thing if nothing else. It is easier to find a problem in a design than it is to find a solution for a design. Design patterns are a powerful way to classify and grasp large abstract recurring design issues. Anti-patterns are nothing but the same. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Re:Anti-pattern Rant (Score:3, Interesting)
Another extreme of criticism is Bikeshed Painting [freebsd.org], where you get swamped with alternative designs; I only mention this because of the nice story behind that link.
Re:Anti-pattern Rant (Score:4, Interesting)
Ya know, I'll bet he loved the "Golden Hammer" antipattern. For those in the cheap seats: the golden hammer antipattern observes that people who get a shiny new tool tend to look at all new problems as if the tool can solve them. I.e. if the only tool you've got is a hammer, all of your problems start to look like nails.
This particular application of this anti-pattern (as a universal pattern debunking argument) is particularly ironic.
Regards,
Ross
Re:Anti-pattern Rant (Score:2)
Seriously, the key is using an appropriate tool. It doesn't matter if the tool is old or new.
Re:Anti-pattern Rant (Score:1)
[geocities.com]
http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/prpats.htm#fo
Re:Anti-pattern Rant (Score:1)
Your critique on the OO/Design Patterns is interesting, I am not sure that it addresses how patterns were used in the book to communicate ideas on how organizations behave. I mentioned in one of the other posts that the chapter on rhythm is availble online [bredemeyer.com]. That chapter includes several patterns that are typical of the style and substance of the others in the book.
Everybody to the Limit (Score:1)
Boss speak? (Score:1)
Or is this actually a worthwhile guide to software engineering? Does anyone know?
Re:Boss speak? (Score:1)
Market Programming (Score:2)
This brain rot gives me a headache. (Score:4, Informative)
What has all of our Functional, Object Oriented, Extreme Programmed, UML-based, XML compliant, Pattern-ed or Anti-Pattern-ed flow charts in animated PowerPoint got us? Its got us a load of crap, thats what. A load of crap. We re-org endlessly. We have more meetings. We write more Standard Operating Procedures. We rewrite the coding standard. We switch languages, run times, operating systems, and libraries. We refactor, re-code, re-work, re-design and re-plan. And we get a load of crap. We manage, and plan and re-manage and re-plan, depending on what the winds of your upper management's whims dictate is the "in" style for the day.
What should all of this tell us?
Software engineering is a practical craft. No amount of process will ever make up for proper training, proper documentation, proper version control, and proper testing. Ever. And that's the way it is. If you have good people, set them free. If you don't, spend a little money to train them to their highest potential instead of trying to make them good cogs in a crappy buzzword wheel.
In the end, 99% of the work done by software engineers is just rearranging magnetic pixy dust on some drive platter, or scattering the electrons in a flash or DRAM or SRAM cell. Most of our value to the universe is just damned pixy dust. And it shouldn't be this difficult.
We don't need any more of this - we all just need to learn how to be practical craftsmen that get *work* done.
Yes and no. (Score:2)
Sure.
No amount of process will ever make up for proper training, proper documentation, proper version control, and proper testing. Ever.
A process is supposed to precicely about a framework for accomplishing those things. Sadly, it doesn't tell you how to do the work. That requires experience.
If you have good people, set them free.
Depends what you mean by this. Do you mean -- everyone is autonomous, let's hope for emergent organization? Or do you mean -- let's come to a consensus of the MINIMAL required ceremony to get our jobs done in the most effective way possible? The former is possible with a very small team of experts. The latter is possible with a (more likely) team of mixed-expertise(high/medium/low).
What I'm trying to say is that process & methodology doesn't have to be about getting poorly [trained, motivated, disciplined] people to develop great software. It just happens that many poor managers (which are in much larger supply than poor software developers) tend to apply it that way.
Agile processes are precicely supposed to be about letting good people get their job done, without stepping on each other! That's the whole idea behind XP and its ilk.
Object oriented technology, patterns, etc. are all techniques for experienced programmers to create more maintainable and expressive programs by elevating the level of discourse. They can be misused. They don't substitute for experience. But there is value there.
By suggesting that "we don't need none of this extra stuff", you are right -- yet there still is a place for that "extra stuff".
It's kind of like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. At the base levels, you need good [disciplined, competent, motivated, intelligent, trained] people, good team dynamics, good technical management, support from general management.
This is the kind of stuff that the Agile Alliance [agilemanifesto.org] believes in. People over processes, collaboration over negotation.
At the upper levels of the hierarchy of needs are things like tools, processes, and higher-level programming constructs. They do add a lot of value to software development, but are not first order success-factors.
Re:This brain rot gives me a headache. (Score:1)
Software engineering is a practical craft. No amount of process will ever make up for proper training, proper documentation, proper version control, and proper testing. Ever. And that's the way it is. If you have good people, set them free. If you don't, spend a little money to train them to their highest potential instead of trying to make them good cogs in a crappy buzzword wheel.
This is quite a simplistic view of the development world. I think it "may" have some relevance for smaller projects, but a recipe for disaster in anything approaching a large project size (i.e. hundreds of people involved).
Just look at some ongoing sizeable Open Source projects (where you might expect no process) as examples. Lets take Mozilla: There are guidelines for coding, guidelines for checking source in, guidelines for reporting/fixing bugs, guidelines for deciding what gets into a particular release, etc... This is a process. It may not be the the process-du-jour, but it exists. It has to at this scope, otherwise anarchy results.
Re:This brain rot gives me a headache. (Score:2)
Where I will agree with is that training, documentation, version control and testing are absolutely critical. I see establishing good ways of doing these things as key process. Buzz words are just that, but they are largely just names for good ways of going about writing software. You need good people, but you need to have them working together and in a manageable way.
Re:This brain rot gives me a headache. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This brain rot gives me a headache. (Score:2)
Software development is easy: (Score:2, Interesting)
I work at the defense application sector and every software project comes complete with a book of specifications. Every little detail is described analytically. We never had a problem with any project. We don't work long hours (standard 9 to 5) because we don't need to. We also have to deliver a preliminary design document prior to first meeting which proves that we understand the design issues.
On the other hand, the next door department works on business applications: web banking, mobile phone accounting, distributed DBs etc. They work under terrible stress, they throw big amounts of code every week, they work overtime almost every night, and they almost all smoke one cigarette after the other. And this is all because there are no fixed requirements for each contract they get: requirements change by the minute, from person to person, from manager to developer to network administrator!!!
The real software is not the code: its the specification, and specification means requirements and design. Everything else, incluging VRAPS, is buzzwords to keep the manager happy.
Re:Software development is easy: (Score:1)
Talking out of your ass is easier (Score:1)
Vandelay Industries is our architect (Score:1)
Sample Chapter Online (Score:1)
The preface and the rhythm chapter can be found on Dana Bredemeyer's software architecture site: http://www.bredemeyer.com/papers.htm [bredemeyer.com]
Amazon also has about 44 pages from the book on their site including all of chapter 1 (Introduction), some of chapter 2 (Reference Model), the index, and table of contents.