On Monday, October 25, 2004, at 9:52:58 AM, Russell Gold wrote:
>> I don't think you get the performance/modularity/decrease in config that we
>> need by incrementally changing something. Refactoring without a clear
>> architectural goal is just polishing a turd.
>> Remember, GIGO - polished, naturally.
>> You seem to be saying that as we incrementally refactor, the architecture
>> will appear from the process. I don't believe this is the case (never
>> witnessed such an event, nor heard of one).
> Any thoughts on how I go about making the case here? Or am I simply
> wrong in assuming that we can refactor to a good architecture without
> extensive documentation and review?
Your interlocutor didn't say anything about requiring extensive
documentation and review. S/he said you need a clear architectural goal.
That turns out to be right: every refactoring should have a clear goal of
improving the architecture in some regard, and things will go much better
if a whole batch of refactorings are all aiming more or less in the same
direction.
The /important/ notion in refactoring is that we don't have to go from here
to there in one big go: we can do it inch by inch, step by step.
As for how much needs to be written down, that may need to be discussed.
But I'd think you could begin with agreement on the need for clear goals.
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
To Fly, Flip Away Backhanded -- Master Frisbee
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
