Hi Peter, It was basically because there was always a core set of functionality required, usually driven by standards and best practices, additional functionality was added as needed. They always had to provide a business case to us, which ultimately defined their requirements after meetings/discussions/prototypes. Please remember I am talking about a single federal government department and not the other world which exists.
The core functionality is a template if you like to call it that on which to expand, some did expand, some did not, and some removed functionality, like this for example www.ap6.gov.au We tried Agile and it didn't work, in fact it was a disaster, but I think that may have been the assigned developer and not the client, although the client was a challenge as well. Needs are different depending on the entity you are dealing with, the one I am describing is an enterprise entity with many small portfolios under it. So this model worked well. Please do have a look at PMBok, it does save pain, but does still allow for Agile, the last 7 projects I produced for the department were Agile. Cheers, R On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because your clients always know upfront what they need before you build > it? There's a reason why Agile and lean have become much more popular. I > believe our goal as professional software engineers is to lower the cost of > change so we can explore the solution space with our clients to provide the > best possible solution within the time available. That is almost never what > is put in the specs - even with details UI testing and prototyping. > > FWIW, I typically build and deploy 50-80 projects a year personally using > our in house software product line - even with plenty of tweaking to help > clients to go from what they asked for to what they need. > > Best Wishes, > Peter > > On Jun 25, 2008, at 4:43 AM, Rae Buerckner wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > Where's the project management, your first cut shouldn't be done until > specifications are signed off, anything else is a change request and has a $ > value. > > Save yourself time and your company $'s by at least exploring PMBok project > management framework, otherwise you will always have a pain point. > > I worked in Fed Gov for a number of years, starting back in 04, we went > from CF5 to MX, adopted the Mach-II framework, had a custom built (by us) > totally awesome CMS, we pushed something like 13 websites fully functional > fully dynamic out the door in 18 months. By the time I left there I had the > ability to receive a CSS skin from a designer and have a fully dynamic, full > functionality website ready for system test, UAT and deployment in 2 hours. > > OO... in particular MVC is the way to go with CF IMHO. > > Example website built in 2 hours is > http://www.energyefficiencyopportunities.gov.au > > Because the sites were all built on a vanilla spec, it was plug and play, > to get it through test quick I would highlight any changed functionality and > that is all they would test, never had a fail. > > Cheers, > > R > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> I get there is a use case for passive code gen, but for me it's pretty >> limited. Assume only 20% of effort is building site (compared to >> maintenance) and 20% is building the first cut with 80% being making changes >> to original version, the most it can do is speed up 4% of the app. It isn't >> that much harder to do active code gen with rich metadata and allows you to >> be way more productive over the entire lifecycle. Just a matter of learning >> the principles and implementing the tooling. I usually find it's worth a day >> or two to create usable tooling for active, full lifecycle code gen rather >> than just using the wizards. >> Best Wishes, >> Peter >> >> On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Rae Buerckner wrote: >> >> Scenario > You're building an enterprise application for an existing >> database > You have Flex 3 front ends > ColdFusion 8 backend! >> >> Install the ColdFusion extensions (free) for Flex Builder > Create a new >> Flex project > Setup your CF setting in the Flex project > enable RDS >> >> You can now browse to any database CF can see, right click on a table > >> select generate CFC's! >> >> Seconds later you have all your getters & setters, all your CRUD and all >> your actionscript. >> >> 20 or so lines of MXML later you have your GUI >> >> Time to market is always the winner! >> >> R >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Peter Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Personally I think the tooling in .net is the worst thing to happen to >>> a good language. I like many of the language features in c#, but the >>> patterns that the tooling supports (code behind, page controllers) >>> just aren't as good as some of the best practice patterns in the Java >>> world. Also, tooling will tend to generate code and the best code is >>> the code that NOBODY writes and that doesn't exist. That is where >>> frameworks come in by raising the level of abstraction. Right now I'm >>> at a code gen conference with some of the Microsoft DSL tools team >>> including Steve Cook and I'll see how it has improved since last year, >>> but I don't feel that on balance the Microsoft tooling does more good >>> than harm for building large, scalable enterprise apps. >>> >>> Best Wishes, >>> Peter >>> >>> On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > I see you point that they (tools and frameworks) fill many of the same >>> > needs. That is probably true of every language. >>> > >>> > But I disagree with the implication that a good tool is inherently >>> > better than a good framework. The choice is much more pragmatic than >>> > that: which option offers the best features, smoothest learning curve, >>> > etc. >>> > >>> > Visual Studio is the clear winner in the .NET space and frameworks are >>> > big in ColdFusion. >>> > >>> > Personally I'm happy to get my hands dirty with plumbing - I'm sure my >>> > understanding of application design and development is the better for >>> > it. >>> > >>> > Blair >>> > >>> > On 6/25/08, Scott Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> I'm sure that convo will yield a lot and provide little :) After >>> >> spending >>> >> some time look around for the past 5 years I've come to one sad >>> >> conclusion >>> >> and I'm sure it's not popular thinking.. Frameworks in coldfusion >>> >> exist to >>> >> compensate for lack of tooling, as if you have nothing to automate >>> >> the >>> >> plumbing you now have to write the automation to then keep the pieces >>> >> manageable to connect. >>> >> >>> >> to answer this riddle, Imagine for a moment if everyone wrote .NET >>> >> with >>> >> notepad? as of today - where would it be tomorrow? >>> >> >>> >> ** >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Barry Beattie < >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> > >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Barnes' thoughts (or similar) are being echoed over on the CFC Dev >>> >>> list at the moment with people like Peter Bell, Sean Corfield, Brian >>> >>> Kotek and our very own Mark Mandel, amongst others. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/cfcdev/browse_thread/thread/2e90c0dbfecf5a59 >>> >>> " Doubts about Best Practices" >>> >>> >>> >>> why was fusebox invented in the firstplace? to push people into >>> >>> doing >>> >>> something more than writing spaghetti code. but you gotta have an >>> >>> idea >>> >>> of how to fix it before you can fully appreciate the problem. Hence >>> >>> the value of learning about design patterns. See the Donald Rumsfeld >>> >>> quote at the bottom >>> >>> >>> >>> let me leave you with some quotes: >>> >>> >>> >>> ... two from Albert Einstein >>> >>> >>> >>> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more >>> >>> violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to >>> >>> move >>> >>> in the opposite direction." >>> >>> - and - >>> >>> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." >>> >>> >>> >>> ... one I got reminded from by (of all people) Gary Menzel >>> >>> >>> >>> "Code for maintainance" >>> >>> >>> >>> ... and Donald Rumsfeld really sums it up >>> >>> >>> >>> "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we >>> >>> know. >>> >>> We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there >>> >>> are some things we do not know. >>> >>> But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know we don't >>> >>> know." >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Scott Barnes >>> >> http://www.mossyblog.com >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
